Skip to main content

View Diary: Queen of Hearts (142 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The compromise doesn't require scheduling. (none)
    There's no vote on it. It just is what it is. If six Republicans agree to block the nuclear option in exchange for... well, whatever... then Frist can trigger the nuclear option the live long day and it won't make a damned bit of difference, provided the Republicans live up to their end of the bargain.

    If they cut a deal, Frist is left holding it in his hand.

    •  Owen is first (none)
      The compromise sez no Owen.

      Who tells Frist no Owen?

      And when I say Frist I mean Dobson.

      by Armando on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:32:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  51 Senators. (none)
        I don't know what the terms of the agreement are, and if they cover motions to call up nominations, but if they do, then someone will object to the motion to take up the Owen nomination, and by majority vote the motion will fail.
      •  Nobody (none)
        Nobody would have to tell Frist anything. He'd call up Owen, the cloture vote would be X-Y (say 55-45 for arguments' sake, just not 60). He'd go nuclear, that would fail 51-49 (or probably more), as per the agreement with the magic six GOPers. Frist could then bring up say Rogers Brown (who would pass under the proposal) - cloture would be achieved 61-39 with the magic six Dems.

        And so on.

        •  At which point (none)
          The far right would go overtime trying to replace those 6 Republican senators with hard right-wingers who will march in lockstep.  And they don't even have to replace all six- one or two is enough.  If we only have four or five Republican Senators on our side on this, it's irrelevent.  Rule change passes 51-50 with Darth Cheney casting the tie breaking vote.  Worse yet, those four or five soon-to-be-ex Republicans would almost certainly find themselves locked out- possibly no committee assignments at all, and for a certainity no good committee assignements.  No pork for their districts.  No money from the central party.  Just in time to face that incredibly well financed primary challenge from the right.

          Brian

          "Loyalty to the country always. Loyalty to the government when it deserves it." --Mark Twain

          by bhurt on Wed May 18, 2005 at 10:36:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Another question Kagro (none)
      If they are intent on breaking the rules then what is going to stop Cheney from ruling as presiding officer that even a majority vote isn't needed to pass the nuclear option.  What if he just decrees from on high that the filibuster is unconstitutional.  I mean, it takes 60 votes to change the rules and they are just going to ignore that requirement.... then what is stopping them from ignoring that it takes 51 votes....

      "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

      by manyoso on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:33:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nothing, really. (none)
        Just their sense of what the electorate will tolerate. They could go bonkers if they thought it'd work out for them, and could get 51 to go along.

        It's been hard enough, though, to get 51 on this claim to constitutionality. I don't know what it'd take to get 51 to change the most basic assumptions Americans make about representative democracy.

        •  Exactly (none)
          Basically, they will cheat however much it takes until someone gets up and throws the table over scattering all of the poker chips and the cards and points a finger and yells CCCCCHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

          "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

          by manyoso on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:52:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Huh? (none)
        Didn't follow that. I thought you were thinking Cheney's ruling is final, but it is subject to vote.

        But I think you are talking about something else.

        And when I say Frist I mean Dobson.

        by Armando on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:38:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, I'm not Armando (none)
          THE PARADOX IS THIS:

          If the Republicans can break_the_rules to change the rules by doing so with a simple majority vote... then what is stopping them from saying they can break_the_rules to change the rules by doing so with just a simple ruling from the presiding officer aka Cheney.

          In other words, if they are going to cheat by substituting a simple majority vote where a vote of 60 or more is necessary to uphold then what is stopping them from cheating by substituting a simple declaration from the presiding officer where a vote of 60 or more is necessary to uphold.

          Don't you get it?  If they are allowed to cheat then what is stopping them from cheating in any way they want.  Clearly, the press and everyone is else is going along with this by saying that what they are doing tomorrow is some kind of legal cheating.  By saying we'll accept their cheating if they get 51 votes tomorrow we're bestowing an air of legitimacy on a clear instance of breaking the rules when we should be crying FOUL!

          "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

          by manyoso on Tue May 17, 2005 at 07:45:11 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  This is very interesting. (none)
            Really, what is to stop them from doing this?  They took 2000, but they followed procedure if not the law.

            Here, they are proposing to do away with procedure.  What's to stop them from doing away with any procedures they don't like, i.e. create a rule like majority PARTY can pass whatever legislation they want...no voting required.

            •  And several Republicans (none)
              I've talked to have said, "Gee, I hope Democrats won't try to pay us back for this when they're in the majority."

              They are maybe realizing it won't always be this way.

              Like, real soon.

          •  That's exactly Norm Ornstein's point (none)
            Once they break the rules, they can do anything they want anytime they want.  Precedent won't mean diddly.

            And don't think this is just about judges and filibusters.  This is also about Frist's ambitions for 2008.  If he pulls this off, he's got Dobson et al backing him for the Presidency, and we'll have a homeland Jihad on our hands

            Wasn't Frist the ONLY politician to speak to the multitides on Justice Sunday? (A preferred activity, I suppose, to diagnosing patients long distance via remote video cam.)  What a slug.

            Sacred cows make the best hamburgers.-Abbie Hoffman

            •  Even Ornstein misses it (none)
              Ornstein from above: "And it will establish, beyond question, a new precedent. Namely, that whatever the Senate rules say -- regardless of the view held since the Senate's beginnings that it is a continuing body with continuing rules and precedents -- they can be ignored or reversed at any given moment on the whim of the current majority."

              NO! NO! A THOUSAND TIMES NO!  The precedent this sets is not that a current majority is all it takes to set the rules.  THE PRECEDENT THIS SETS IS THAT THE REPUBLICANS CAN CHEAT AND AS LONG AS NO ONE CALLS THEM ON IT THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT.  Today, they want to set the rules via a simple majority.  Who knows what they want tomorrow, but the precedent is that they can have it even without a simple majority if they only cheat and those who oppose legitimize it by not calling it what it is: cheating and illegal.

              "... the Republicans have fucked reality so hard they need a physics professor to straighten them out." -- hamletta

              by manyoso on Tue May 17, 2005 at 08:49:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I think we're in basic agreement on that point (none)
                My use of the term "precedent" really wasn't in the context of how Ornstein was using it. That was confusing, I apologize. I meant that the nuclear option would throw out 200+ years of precedent by which the Senate operates.

                I agree that if the Repubs pull this off, there will probably be nothing to stop them from doing any damn thing they want.

      •  it takes 67 votes, not 60, to change the rules. (none)
        It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster.

        So it takes 67 votes to change senate rules to allow for 51 votes to end all filibusters.

        it takes 60 votes to end any particular filibuster.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site