Daily Kos

Frist to change Senate filibuster rules

Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:39:30 PM PDT

So Frist will today "give his blessing" to a plan to change the Senate rules so that only 51 votes are required to end a filibuster of Bush's judicial nominations.

Here's the article from this morning's CongressDailyAM (subscription only, sorry no link):

Wednesday, November 17, 2004

SENATE LEADERSHIP
Frist To Go 'Nuclear' On Nominations
By John Stanton
     Senate Majority Leader Frist today is expected to give his blessing to a GOP plan to dramatically change the Senate's voting rules -- effectively eliminating Democrats' ability to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees, aides said Tuesday.
     Democratic leadership sources warned that a move to reduce from 60 to 51 the number of votes needed to end a filibuster of judicial nominees would be considered a declaration of war by most Democrats, could further weaken the position of the chamber's shrinking population of moderates and almost certainly would create new obstacles for the GOP's agenda.
     During a closed-door meeting of the GOP Conference today, Frist will inform his colleagues that while the so-called "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules will be reserved as a last resort, Republicans will no longer tolerate Democratic efforts to block Bush's nominees to the federal bench, an aide to Frist confirmed.
     According to this source, no immediate action on changing the rules is planned. Frist will wait for the next floor debate on a contested Bush appointee.
     During that process, he will attempt to negotiate with Democrats and pursue any and all options to break the deadlock. Assuming those overtures fail, Frist would then ask the presiding officer of the Senate to rule on the 60-vote requirement.
     The presiding officer would then find that only a 51-vote majority is needed to end a filibuster in the case of judicial nominees -- a finding to which Democrats would almost certainly object, forcing a vote on whether to overturn the ruling of the chair.
     But because Frist would only need 51 votes from his new 55 vote-majority to protect the decision, the majority leader believes he would have enough support within his Conference to impose the change.
     Although Frist came to his decision in an effort to speed the approval process of Bush's nominees, Democratic sources warned pursuing a rule change would almost certainly poison the already bitter atmosphere in the Senate and undermine the efforts of moderates in both parties to reduce tensions in the chamber.
     A bipartisan group of moderate lawmakers Tuesday held the first post-election meeting of the "Centrist Coalition" headed up by Sens. Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The group announced that Sens. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., will serve as co-chairmen.
     The group's aim, according to Snowe, is to "help break the impasse on issues" moderates in both parties can agree are important to the nation as a whole. Lieberman told reporters, "What drives us together is the feeling that Congress has become too partisan."
     But use of the nuclear option on judges could kill those efforts before they ever begin. One source close to Democratic moderates warned, "If Frist starts playing games like this, you're going to see more and more of us say, 'Well, [forget] him.'"
     A Democratic leadership source agreed, predicting a change to the rules might galvanize Senate Democrats of all stripes while emboldening progressive elements within the party to become more aggressive in their opposition to the GOP.
     "Can you imagine what a guy like [Sen. Tom] Harkin will do?" the leadership source asked of the populist Democrat from Iowa.

Stuff like this only adds to the feeling of impotent rage I've been feeling lately.  I have to wonder what will happen if the Republicans choose to go down this road.

Might this be the end of the road for Chafee?  What about Snowe and Collins?  Voinovich? Smith of OR?  Does Frist really have the votes to change this rule?

I would be curious to hear from the parlimentarians out there on possible dodges on the vote on rule change.  I seem to recall that efforts to change the rules on filibusters during the civil rights era failed because the debate on the rule change was itself subject to filibuster.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 137 comments

  •  minority protection (4.00 / 3)

    I think this country needs a basic lesson about our government and the way it was set up.
    We are completely throwing out the system of checks and balance.  There are fillibusters and a constitution/bill of rights to protect the minorities and to make sure that the majority realizes that there are people that do not agree with them.
    It seems to me, the radical part of the republican party is completely forgetting this and is taking advantage of the sleeping moderate republicans who are letting the radical side hijack the party.

    looking for an entry level job in sales/marketing or advertising

    by upsavr on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:38:46 PM PDT

    •  Sadly, Filibusters Are Not a Constitutional Issue (none / 0)

      The only mention of anything regarding filibusters (i.e., endless debate) in the Constitution is that the Senate is charged with making its own rules. There's no requirement on number of votes.

      Historically, the Democrats set a precedent for changing the cloture rule in the mid-70s, when the reduced the requirement from two-thirds (67) to 60 votes.

      Whether Frist can find sufficient cover for breaking out the nuclear option is almost entirely dependent on how often the Democrats use it. If they try it with every issue that arises, Frist will call for a ruling from the chair, with subsequent parliamentary procedure leading to the figurative mushroom cloud, within a very few months. It actually benefits the GOP to do it sooner, rather than later, to put as much separation between their action and election-06 as possible.

      Thus, it looks probable that Condi Rice's new appointment will breeze through, unless for some unknown reason our beltway pundits all suddenly find their own voice. The GOP's senate pickups have even made cross-overs on role calls nearly a non-issue.

      Filibuster is a powerful, but double-edged sword.

  •  He'll only do it (none / 0)

    if he knows he'd win

    It would be a devestating blow to frist and the republican leadership if they lost a vote to change the filibuster rules.  It would basically tell the world "them democrats are right, even republicans think that bush's nominees are bad"

    Freedom isn't Free, but we shouldn't get ripped off for it either.

    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:42:10 PM PDT

    •  aoeu (none / 0)

      They don't need to change the rules (66 votes), just the interpretation of the rules (1 vote).

      turtles consider
      every single vote deeply
      yet always vote dem

      by TealVeal on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:13:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, but still (none / 0)

        if 6 republicans come out and say they're against it, they'll lose, and he wont do it if he knows he'll lose.

        Freedom isn't Free, but we shouldn't get ripped off for it either.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:16:46 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  aoeu (none / 0)

          Oh I see, they then vote on the parlimentarian's decision?

          turtles consider
          every single vote deeply
          yet always vote dem

          by TealVeal on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:23:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Right (none / 0)

            And yes, Frist thinks/knows he'll win.

            But we can't be defeatist.  I think we need to put pressure on the Repugs ... make them use as much political capitol as possible if they want to do this.

            This issue is just too important to take this laying down.  (Check out the link in my signature for more on this.)

            •  I agree. (none / 0)

              Should this happen, Senate Republicans should be advised that the favor will be returned in kind should the Democrats return to power.  In the meantime, a complete Democratic walkout from Congress in both the House and Senate, unless they relent, might be most useful.  If Republicans are going to act like that, they are going to have to pass bills without any impromptuer from Democrats.

              "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" -- Voltaire

              by ohwilleke on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:45:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Quorum? (none / 0)

                Does the Senate have a quorum? If so, a walkout might be as effective as a filibuster.

                It (almost) worked in Texas...

                •  Unfortunately all you need is a majority (none / 0)

                  All you need is 50 or 51 votes to have quorum in the Senate.  Nice idea, though.

                  We just need to fight by filibustering everything else the Repugs do--this change only applies to judicial nominations--until we can convince at least six of them to vote against this lunacy.

                  •  1 week = 7 days = 168 hours (none / 0)

                    divided by 45 senators equals 3.73 hours per week.

                    All the Senate Dems have to do is assign each of their members 4 hour shifts (at a minimum) each week, and they could sustain a filibuster indefinitely.

                    Anybody got a phone book?

                    All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -Thomas Jefferson

                    by Chicago Jason on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 07:18:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  To TealVeal (none / 0)

        Re. "There are fights in 2005 coming up"...

        What's the point, when the votes will be hacked?  

        We need to eliminate systematic election fraud first and foremost.

  •  Recommended (none / 0)

    I'm recommending this because I would also like to know what some of the more knowledgeable people around think it would take to make that happen.

    The fillibuster is our last hope to preserve some type of checks and balances in this country.

    Thanks for posting that.

    (tip jar?)

    I'm not afraid of terrorists anymore. I'm afraid of my government.

    by supergreen on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:45:51 PM PDT

    •  what it would take to make it happen (none / 0)

      The democrats used this method in 1975 to change the filibuster requirement from 66 to 60 with a bare majority.  As long as the republicans have 50 votes, they can pass this at any time they want to and they are on completely solid legal footing.  Specter is already on board with the rule change, collins, snowe, and chaffee are supposedly against it (which is why they couldn't do it last year) but I don't have any link proving that.  Even if all 3 are against it, the democrats would still need 3 more republicans to oppose it and I just don't see it.  

      One other thing to note- Byrd, Leahy, Kennedy, and Inouye all voted for the nuclear option when it passed in 1975.  

      •  Is this something where (none / 0)

        Cheney could cast a tie-breaking vote? or if it's 50-50, does the motion just fail?  Just wondering.

        Freedom isn't Free, but we shouldn't get ripped off for it either.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:53:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  ties (none / 0)

          The VP could cast a tiebreaking vote.  The democrats would need to switch 6 republicans to shut it down.  Of course, the republicans wouldn't try and pull it if there was a chance it was going to go down in flames.  

          It should also be pointed out that there isn't any reason for the republicans to eliminate the filibuster alltogether.  Likely they would just set the rule so the first cloture vote still takes 60- the second cloture vote would only take 55- and so on until eventually it would get to a straight up or down vote.  Originally a filibuster was just supposed to be for when senators thought there wasn't enough debate on a subject, it has turned into a way to block action over time.

          •  But what if (none / 0)

            The VP isn't there? I think if it was just 50-50 it dies, without the VP present to cast a tie-breaking vote.

            Would that mean that Cheney would want to be there in any situation where the Democrats might try to filibuster a judge?

            Freedom isn't Free, but we shouldn't get ripped off for it either.

            by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:01:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no.... (none / 0)

              The republicans would only have to change the rules once- then the filibuster for judicial nominees would be gone forever.  Cheney would probably preside over the senate that day just because its a mommentus occasion and its not like putting this into action is going to lower his polling numbers with democrats any more.  So the republicans would let the democrats filibuster judges (they are already filibustering 10 of them), and have Cheney come out one day to preside over the senate. He would probably make a speech about how this was done by democrats in 1975 and have quotes from the 4 members of the senate at the time in favor of it.  He would declare a judicial emergency and they would have a simple up or down vote on the filibuster rules for judicial nominations.  There wouldn't be any need for him to ever be there again after the rules have changed.
              •  Well thats what I mean (none / 0)

                he would have to be there on the day frist does it for him to cast the tie-breaking vote.

                Of course, if for whatever reason he wasn't there, Frist would probably just allow them to filibuster until Cheney hops on a plane and gets there.

                Freedom isn't Free, but we shouldn't get ripped off for it either.

                by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:11:20 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  well... (none / 0)

                  They day they change the rule they would know well in advance.  Its not like the republicans would have to preemptively do this.  They could wait until the democrats have already filibustered 15 or 20 judges including a supreme court justice (frankly I don't know if the dems can get 40 to filibuster a supreme but that is a different diary) then pull this to resolve the deadlock.  But the republicans control the schedule on invoking the nuclear option, its not like this is something that the democrats can pull whenever they want.  And the only time Cheney NEEDS to be there is if its a tie.  Other than that he would just be there because its a historic moment.
                  •  true n/t (none / 0)

                    Freedom isn't Free, but we shouldn't get ripped off for it either.

                    by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:23:59 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Could the Dems just refuse to show in the Senate (none / 0)

                    and cause there to be no quorum?

                    Don't be so afraid of dying that you forget to live.

                    by LionelEHutz on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:58:25 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  asdf (none / 0)

                    if somebody as far-right as Robert Bork is nominated, you'll see at least 40 dems line up for a filibuster ... (not that bork himself is likely - too old - but there are other Federalist Society uber-recht legal scholars who could provoke this kind of reaction)
                    •  filibuster of a supreme (none / 0)

                      The republicans have 55 votes now.  I don't think that Nelson from Nebraska, Conrad from North Dakota, or Nelson from Florida could participate in a filibuster and keep their seat in 06.  The democrats would just be walking a fine line even with the 60 vote requirement.  I don't think democrats will filibuster when it is Rehnquist being replaced (No nominee is going to move the court further left with a republican president and a 55 seat majority) but when O'Connor goes I have no idea what will happen.
                      •  And (none / 0)

                        Baucus and Bayh are not exactly reliable votes either.  Carper, Landrieu, and Lincoln could also be worrisome, but I think we'll hold them.

                        Feingold has also been weird on appointment filibuster's in the past, but that might have just been for Cabinet positions.

                        Hey, on the bright side, at least we don't have to worry about Miller or Breaux anymore!

                        I miss Wellstone - he would have really gone nuclear over this.

                        lib-er-al: Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not limited to or by established, orthodox or authoritarian attitudes.

                        by DCescapee on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:33:34 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Feingold (none / 1)

                          When he agreed to let Ashcroft pass, he explicitly said he distinguished the Cabinet confirmation process from that for Judges and US Attorneys for the respective Judicial Districts.

                          Democratic Candidate for US Senate, WI (2012)
                          Masel4senate

                          by ben masel on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:51:25 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Good (none / 0)

                            I thought the was the case.

                            But now that I think about it, that was more about letting nominees through committee then it was about filibustering them.

                            Hopefully he doesn't have any maverick ideas about the filibuster.

                            lib-er-al: Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not limited to or by established, orthodox or authoritarian attitudes.

                            by DCescapee on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:12:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                        •  Bayh (none / 0)

                          Bayh is one to watch.  IF he is serious about running for president he will look for a high profile issue to break with democrats on to shore up his centrist credentials and increase his name recognition.  I don't think he would go against the whole party for a supreme court nomination - thats cutting awfully close to roe, but its an issue on paper that would be about as high profile as he could expect.
                          •  But (none / 0)

                            to play Devil's Advocate, one could also argue that he knows he has to run to the left of his natural views in order to win a primary.

                            I can see it playing out either way.

                            lib-er-al: Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not limited to or by established, orthodox or authoritarian attitudes.

                            by DCescapee on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:15:25 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                •  Actually, (none / 0)

                  IIRC isn't the vote on whether to reverse the parliamentary ruling?  If that's the case, a 50-50 vote loses (if the VP is not there), and the new filibuster rule goes into effect. So they wouldn't need even Cheney.

                  Not that it really matters.

                  I vaguely recall this question the last time there was a major parliamentary issue (a couple years ago when the Senate was 50-50).  The Republican-appointed parliamentarian wouldn't play ball, and Lott forced him out.

                  lib-er-al: Open to new ideas for progress; tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; not limited to or by established, orthodox or authoritarian attitudes.

                  by DCescapee on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:18:16 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

      •  McCain (none / 0)

        McCain, I think, has already come out against this.  I think his statement went something like: "It would be a good idea if you could guarantee a Republican majority, but I'm afraid this could come back to haunt us."

        "Well... you could always hang yourself!"

        by Jugwine on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:02:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  the problem (3.71 / 21)

          I think McCain understand the value of the filibuster, but demcorats already used this option once to unilaterially change the filibuster rules, how can he trust them not to use it again when they are in the majority?  Even if republicans wanted to compromise and make the filibuster for judicial nominations 57 or 55, there would be no way to ensure that democrats wouldn't just lower that number when they had a 52 seat majority. You know that people here would be clamoring for them to use the nuclear option if the republicans were filibustering a liberal supreme court justice.  I think he understands it would be better if they didn't go down this road, but really the republicans would be counting on democrats deciding not to do this when they had the opportunity, and considering the downward spiral the confirmation process is going through I just don't see why the republicans woudl hold off they can pass it off in the public as the democrats being overly obstructionist.  

          I think the only recouse Democrats have is to be completely unobstructionist on most issues- even to the point of allowing estrada to get on the DC court of appeals so that the few times they do filibuster they can shout to the rooftops about how accomodating they ahve been.  Public opinion really is the battle that democrats have to win.

          •  a zero rating!? (none / 0)

            Are you kidding me?  Someone troll rated me for this post?  What did I say that was the least bit inflamatory?  This post was all about advancing the conversation.  If you zero rated this post you really need to get a thicker skin.
          •  Won't work. (none / 0)

            They can be accommodating on every issue but one, and with that one issue the right would paint Dems as anti-American obstructionists who only care about their partisan politics and don't give a damn about America. The media would buy it and the public would buy it. Look at what they've been buying over the last several years. We definitely need to build a better media machine.

            The further downside is that they get more of their bills through Congress with our cooperation. We may not be able to stop them, but if we can slow them down maybe we still have the right to leave our homes after dark by the time 2008 rolls around.

            Fight them every inch of the way. If life, liberty and justice aren't worth fighting for, then what the hell is this all about?

            Also, if we constantly fight them and occasionally cooperate, then that cooperation would be the exception and would receive more media coverage. The average day-to-day stuff does not get noticed. The exception to the rule gets the air time.

            •  obstrution (none / 0)

              the ONLY thing keeping the republicans from pulling the lever on this would be a public backlash.  They are on solid legal footing, they apparantly have the votes, and they have no reason to leave the rule in place for when they are in the minority because the democrats have this option as well.  The only reason not to do this would be if the public saw that the democrats were working with Bush, but the president was just exceptionally greedy and wasn't satisfied with 80% of he agenda and wanted 100%.  If the democrats are trying to keep Bush to 50% of his agenda against a 55 seat republican majority I just don't see people being all that upset about it.  But you could certainly be right, that this is the last stand and public opinion be damned.
              •  Or... (none / 0)

                We could start the public debate now - make it the (second) stinkiest topic for them to handle and start framing the argument before they do.
                •  absolutely (none / 0)

                  The other thing that could cost them seats is if people don't want republicans to have complete control of the federal government.  Maybe tie the filibuster to being the emergency brake.  
                  •  something like (none / 0)

                    republicans already have the keys to the car- do you really want to remove the emergency brake when we are already going downhill?

                    The only problem is that Bush has picked up senate seats in both of his elections since becoming president which I think is a pretty unprecedented thing.  Historically I think people have tended to favor gridlock, but Bush has managed to pick up seats somehow.

          •  You assume (none / 0)

            that there will ever be an opportunity when the Democrats again hold the majority.

            I wish I could be that optimistic, but I can't help think the GOP's goal is a one-party-dominated state, like Mexico used to be under the PRI.

            All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent. -Thomas Jefferson

            by Chicago Jason on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 07:24:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  I hope... (none / 0)

    that maybe our party will choose to fight Frist on this.  This is why we need someone like Howie D. in the DNC and other party leadership positions.  We need to show some spine and call the Repubs on these transparent attempts to change the rules to favor their agenda.  Otherwise, i fear, we'll see an exodus of the faithful from our party, all because we let the status quo Dems have their way and not rock the boat.

    There will be no dry humping in this car! barlights

    by DLove on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:45:57 PM PDT

    •  Oh believe me (none / 0)

      The Dems will probably raise hell if Frist tries to do this.

      The only thing more valueable than having the majority is having the filibuster.

      Freedom isn't Free, but we shouldn't get ripped off for it either.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:49:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We need to see (none / 0)

        who raises hell and who does not.  I hope you're right, but I have a feeling some "Democrats" will mute themselves.

        Those are the ones we do not need in our Party.  If we cannot stand up and fight for an issue like this, we are truly doomed, in a history text kind of way.  Anyone who does not see that is a DINO and needs to go.

        Angie and Bill: Colorado's bright future!

        by ubikkibu on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:40:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  A DNC Chair would have no control over this (none / 0)

      The Democrats need to find six republicans to vote against this, that's the bottom line. It would be Reid, Durbin, and Stabenow's job to bring this issue to the court of public opinion. They have to make it known that the republicans were no different when Clinton was in the White House.

      ==== The More You Know *

      by ZT155 on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:53:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Another fight on the floor. (none / 1)

      The Dems need to fight. Period. They've been getting steamrolled and will continue to be steamrolled with a policy of supplication.

      There is a time for moderation. This is not that time.

      The other fight which is already coming out of the gate is whether or not to raise the credit line on the national debt from $7.38 Trillion. We actually exceeded our ceiling in October, but Treasury Secretary John Snow used some creative accounting to cover the fact before election. Link to the story.

      We're broke and all spent out so the Repubs want to raise our $7.38 Trillion credit limit and go even further into debt. The question is how much the Democrats believe in fiscal responsibility. We'll see in the next week or so if it was a campaign talking point or something deeper than that. I realize I'm being callous to the short-term problems the financial shortfall would cause, but the first step to getting control of our deficeit is to stop spending on borrowed money. That is the first priority. I'm interested to see if it is a priority with the party.

      Also, never let the Repubs frame the argument surrounding the shortfall. Keep the message going out that it was the Repugs that spent us into a hole and that it is the Dems which are now trying to stop our descent into insolvency. Maybe paint a scenario of the Repubs having to hold a yard sale selling off our national monuments in order to pay off our debt. I bet they could get a good price for the Statue of Liberty. It's been newly remodeled.

      •  Don't Look to the Senate Floor for the Fight (4.00 / 2)

        That battle was fought over the past several months, and culminated on November 2. The battle was lost. Even the filibuster is limited by the Senate rules, and Frist's nuclear option becomes probable if the Dems try for endless debate.

        The real fight will take place in the precincts all around the country. My state will have two Dem senators. How about yours? If not, what are you going to do about it? Posting comments on DKos may be therapeutic, but it's not the action that will help take our party, and our country, back.

        Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the GOP has full control of the agenda. Expect to see more circumstances where copies of bills are not made available to the Democrats. Expect to see expedited votes on massive legislation. Expect to see more legislation created extra-constitutionally in conference committee following passage of dissimilar bills, with the more objectionable provisions surviving. And expect the White House to continue to forget that there's a constitutional power known as the Presidential veto.

        The beltway democrats have been complicit in the GOP take-over. Too comfortable in their jobs, too happy with the nicknames and personal perks supplied by lobbyists, too many of them are "Just happy to be here", and far more intent on trying to figure out how they can stay where they are than they are committed to the values that good Democrats should pay more attention to.

        The DNC requires reform before we can expect results on Capitol Hill. Perhaps, though, the local parties require reform before we can expect performance from the DNC. Election 2004 has really drawn a laser-like focus on what's wrong with the Party. To focus on the solution, check your bathroom mirror. (don't forget to smile)

        •  thats the tough thing (none / 0)

          Everyone here wants to fight fight fight on this, but in reality the democrats got to this unbeleivably critical moment in history with only 45 senators.  Thats just starting out in an awfully big hole and 06 doesn't look particularly promising.  08 is the year that a dramatic change in the senate could take place, but that just leaves a whole lot of time to try and play prevent defense.
          •  Haven't Spread the Numbers on Election2006 Yet (none / 0)

            Curious to see who'll be up, and what their chances are. I would expect dem pick-ups, perhaps even enough to become a viable minority in the Senate.

            I'm glad folks think the Dems should fight. But I'm depressed to see them believing that Dems who have shown little inkling to fight on the people's behalf would be able to find the stones to do it now. I'd feel much better if I could believe they were all either joining their local Dem Party, or getting directly involved with a group like DFA, and working to reform/refresh the party from the ground up.

            •  Here are the senators up: (none / 0)

              Democrats (17):

              California (Feinstein)
              Connecticut (Lieberman)
              Delaware (Carper)
              Florida (Bill Nelson)
              Hawaii (Akaka
              Maryland (Sarbanes)
              Massachusetts (Kennedy)
              Michigan (Stabenow)
              Minnesota (Dayton)
              Nebraska (Ben Nelson)
              New Jersey (Corzine)
              New Mexico (Bingaman)
              New York (Clinton)
              North Dakota (Conrad)
              Washington (Cantwell)
              West Virgina (Byrd)
              Wisconsin (Kohl)

              Independents: (1)
              Vermont (Jeffords)

              Republicans (15):

              Arizona (Kyl)
              Indiana (Lugar)
              Maine (Snowe)
              Mississippi (Lott)
              Missouri (Talent)
              Montana (Burns)
              Nevada (Ensign)
              Ohio (DeWine)
              Pennsylvania (Santorum)
              Rhode Island (Chafee)
              Tennessee (Frist)
              Texas (Hutchinson)
              Utah (Hatch)
              Virginia (Allen)
              Wyoming (Thomas)

              It's hard to tell who will be beatable.  Most of pickups on both sides come from retirements.  A total of 8 seats changed hands this time, but only a single incumbent (Daschle) was beaten.

              •  Allen and Santorum (none / 0)

                Should be prime incumbent knock-off targets, and already there are two terrific and very popular candidates taking shape to challenge.

                In PA:

                Former GOP-turned Dem State Treasurer Barbara Hafer is organizing and fundraising already, and she's extremely popular and has been elected statewide several times.

                In VA:

                Governor Mark Warner, already mentioned by some for a 2008 Presidential run, has a solid chance of beating George Allen, having damn-near knocked off longtime Senator John Warner in 1998 with 48% of the vote.  In 2001 he received over 52% of the vote, and as current Governor has been very successful and has an 80% approval rating.

                The best shots.

                Also, we should make the case to Jeffords and Chafee both to run as Dems in 2008.

                Where else can we pull off surprises?

                •  Here's Your First Big Shocker (none / 0)

                  The Democrats' undercard really performed well in M_O_N_T_A_N_A. The state party there has found a successful model by marrying the interests of green types and outdoorsmen who are more comfortable (though not aligned) with the NRA than with GreenPeace by developing a message much like that Howard Dean succeeded with in Vermont - a stewardship for the outdoors so our children's children will continue to have pristine wilderness lands to enjoy.  Don't know whether they've found a candidate, but it's viable.

                  Montana is trending blue.

              •  Defending (none / 0)

                Nebraska and Florida sound like they'll be tough.

                Also, what about the possibility of taking Senate seats in Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio given the expected improved Democratic performances in the former two, and increased Democratic registration in Ohio?

              •  Here's one analysis...from mydd (none / 0)

                "There is nothing false about hope." -- Barack Obama

                by DC Pol Sci on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:31:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Already there. (none / 0)

          In it. Doing it. Thanks for checking.
    •  Agreed (none / 0)

      We need to fight until the death on this one.  And here's how we do it--we filibuster everything else if the Repugs want to change the rule for judicial nominations.

      We can't let them win this.  The stakes are just too high.  I just wrote a diary on this.

  •  My favorite quote (4.00 / 3)

    The source close to the Democratic moderates said that "If Frist starts playing games like this, you're going to see more and more of us say, 'Well, [forget] him.' "

    The brackets are used to indicate a paraphrase by the journalist. What do you s'pose that guy said in place of forget?

  •  People here despise Lieberman (none / 1)

    but right now Centrists are the only thing standing between sanity and the end of checks & balances as we know it. Hopefully Joementum can convince Snowe, Voinovich and some others to vote against this rule change in the name of democracy.

    I guess this answers the question of whether or not he'll join Bush's cabinet. If Secretary of State were offered to him, like reports suggest, he'd be a fool to not at least consider it. But I'm sure Rice was who they wanted all the time.

    ==== The More You Know *

    by ZT155 on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 12:49:56 PM PDT

  •  I say let's get ugly. (none / 1)

    I mean congressional immunity ugly.

    Any action taken by a congressman while traveling to and from congress, and those taken in the context of congressional business are legal in the context of the constitution.

    Google "Preston Brooks", Sumner, and beating.

    It took 3 years for Sumner to recover.

    I never thought that I'd miss Trent Lott, but I swear, if Bush proposed the death penalty for Surgeons in the Senate, Frist would be a frelling cosponsor.

    Frist has less respect for the Senate as an institution than just about anyone else that I've ever heard of.

    It could be worse. I could still be living in Texas.

    by msaroff on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:01:15 PM PDT

  •  on when it happened in 1975. (4.00 / 2)

    I have posted this link a bunch whenever this subject comes up so I might as well put it in again here.  Here is an article talking about when Demcorats used the nuclear option in 1975 to change the filibuster rules from 66 to 60.  Its an interesting read overall.

    http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030513-104057-4994r.htm

    And the eerily priescent quote from Robert Byrd warning democrats this move might have negative consequences in the future (though he did vote for it):

    "The day may come, although I hope it will not be in my time, when we will be in the minority and it will take only 51 senators from the other side of the aisle to stop debate immediately, without one word, on some matter which we may consider vital to our states or to the nation."
    •  This may be a better source explaining the (none / 1)

      nuclear option:

      http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/in_our_opinion/nuclear_option.htm

      Here's my understanding:

      Technically the senate rules in 1975 and the senate rules today require 67 votes to invoke cloture (end debate) on an ammendment to change senate rules (It now takes 60 votes to end debate on normal legislation).

      The "nuclear option" (used in 1975) is based upon the concept that the senate rules themselves (those implaced by previous senates) are not binding under the constitution and can be ignored.  It's relatively complicated in practice -- so read the link.  In the short term the decision is made by the majority party in the senate -- but after the nuclear option is used I think there is a possibility it could get decided by the courts (i.e. if a criminal was convicted by a judge who is pushed through the senate using the nuclear option).

      In this case the result of the nuclear option will be a majoritarian senate where only a simple majority is needed to pass legislation, confirm nominees, and make-up, change, or ignore senate rules passed in previous senate sessions.  Expect the democrats to be forced to wear donkey ear hats while Cheney is present.  

      If the nuclear option passes muster, it would take a constitutional amendment to impose anti-majoritarian rules on the senate that lasted more than a single senate session.  

      It's sort of ironic considering that "unlimited debate" was a feature of the senate and house when the founding fathers were still alive and cloture is a mere 87 years old.

      •  thanks (none / 0)

        That is a much better link- even better that I don't have to keep relying on the Washington Times link where people will think something important has been left out.  

        And the more I have thought about it, the more I agree in principle that one session of senate should not be able to impose rules on future versions of the senate.  Lets say that the republicans knew they were going to lose control of the senate (albeit narrowly.  If they passed laws during their lame duck session strengthening the powers the minority party had, the democrats shouldn't be bound by those rules when they take control of the senate.  I think in theory there should be a method for binding compromises that have long term implications, but I just don't know how that could work in theory because of issues like this.  

        •  I think the link may also be backed by (none / 0)

          a right wing think tank -- but at least the provide some citations for the legal reasoning.  

          It seems reasonable to me that the senate would have some sort of long term rules that protect the interests of minority parties, but I too don't know how it would get done if the legal reasoning in the article stands up.  

          It's clear to me that unlimited debate is the natural state of the senate -- so if rules from previous senates don't apply the senate should have to vote for a new rule to block filibustering every new senate session.  

          It would be nice to get a SCOTUS opinion on this.  At least it would keep the guy with the gavel from accepting old rules that he likes and dismissing old that he doesn't like without a vote.  

  •  nuclear option (none / 0)

    actually it is CHANEY that must declare a nuclear option stating that the curretn fillibuster rules are unconstitutional.  Remember the Senate makes up its own rules, not bound for review by anyone else.
    So Chaney declares it, and then they need the 51 majority vote.

    I think that if there is no fillibuster than in certain areas the democrats should refuse to show up and that would hurt our government legitimacy since the minorities are not being represented.

    Seems to me all of my republican friends, many who are intelligent and moderate, are not waking up to the reality that the republican party is not rudy and ahhhnold but is really radical right.  They also seem to be falling into the trap of this is America majority rules.  And are ignoring the founding principles of minority protection against tyranny by the majority.

    This is a major reason why I am a democrat other than economic beliefs of progressive tax system and using government for the people to help them.  I am a democrat because this party understands the idea of the bill of rights of minority protection serving its purpose in the role of checks and balances.

    looking for an entry level job in sales/marketing or advertising

    by upsavr on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:02:39 PM PDT

  •  No way McCain votes for this... right? (none / 0)

  •  There is no absolute right to filibuster (none / 0)

    Filibusters are already not allowed on some bills (budgets for instance).  It would not be a big deal to disallow filibusters on judicial appointments since it is arguably unconstitutional.  Besides, the next Democratic president would have his nominees filibustered in retaliation if this is allowed to continue.

    Before 2001 the only filibustered nominee was Abe Fortas for Chief Justice.  

    •  You're right (none / 0)

      But the Senate sets it's own rules.

      the senate could set a rule stating that to confirm a judge, there would have to be unanamous consent if they wanted to.

      There is no way one could say this is unconstitutional.

      Freedom isn't Free, but we shouldn't get ripped off for it either.

      by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:08:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  um (none / 0)

      You're forgetting about threats to fillibuster, which until recently had the same effect as fillibustering. This idea that "fillibustering is new" is a political point, nothing more.

      Google for "blue slip senate"

      •  You could say (none / 0)

        that all filibusters are merely threats to filibuster.  The majority counts the votes, sees that 60 aren't there and gives up.

        When was the last time there was a real talk until you drop filibuster?

        •  er (none / 0)

          that all filibusters are merely threats to filibuster.

          Not really. Here's a link that says a cloture vote was taken as recently as April 2003. Guess a filibuster of sorts was on at the time.

          Yes, the senate usually doesn't waste time having people stand and talk for hours. That's the idea of filibustering, to get the majority party to move on.

          And my original point is that blue slips were common to achieve concessions from one party or another and so to say filibustering is a recent phenomenon is disingenuous. What's recent is the republicans forcing the filibuster to actually take place in order to score a political point.

          •  Aren't blue slips different? (none / 0)

            Appointments to district courts in say, California, have to pass muster with the senators from California.

            I don't think anyone could blue slip a SCOTUS nomination.

            •  Repugs stopped allowing blue slips (none / 0)

              That's why the Dems are resorting to so many filibusters. I think it was Hatch that changed the informal Senate rule that allowed Senators to blue slip nominees from their own state. There ain't no such beast anymore.

              Iraq is Arabic for Vietnam

              by JollyBuddah on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 04:22:39 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

    •  its a tough situation (none / 0)

      the democrats really did set the bar where it now takes 60 senators to confirm a circuit court judge (and almost certainly a supreme court justice).  This might be good or bad but its certainly a change from what the standard previously was.  I do think 60 is a little high but I could certanly see 55 or 57 as being the proper number.

      But here is the real issue- lets say Kerry was in office with a 55 seat republican senate.  Aside from all the nominees that would get buried in the judiciary committee, how many would Kerry really pass if he had to convince 15 republicans to confirm a judge?  

      •  If the republicans didn't like it (none / 0)

        they would make sure it never got out of committee.

        Freedom isn't Free, but we shouldn't get ripped off for it either.

        by FleetAdmiralJ on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:28:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  absolutey (none / 0)

          I have thought for a long time that every nominee deserved an up or down vote.  My proposal when the estrada business started (after the jeffords switch) was to get a bipartisan rule change effective in 05 where every nominee was guaranteed a vote on the floor but there needed to be a 55 seat margin to confirm them.  That way the majority party could still shut down nominees, but they had to do it in front of the whole world in an up or down vote.  When the senate was 51-49 dem at that time no one thought the republicans would have 55 seats at this point, so that idea is out.  But the problem is that even if both sides agreed to pass that law, there just would be no guarantee that future senates wouldn't just use the nuclear option to change the rule again.

          But you are completely right, judges the republicans didn't like would have just been buried in the committee where the public won't ever hear about it.  SPecter might have had a big affect if Kerry had won because of this.  At this point Specter just isn't likely to matter.

  •  what about my idea (none / 0)

    if the fillibuster rule is changed that democrats just don't even show up to congress.  then gov't lacks legitimacy.

    i know the talk shows would go nuts about how majority rules, but we would just go on explaining how the minority needs to be represented, and that we are not a small minority.  Give a lesson on the role of the constitution/bill of rights so that the majority can not act in tyranny.

    looking for an entry level job in sales/marketing or advertising

    by upsavr on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:08:47 PM PDT

  •  so this is how specter got... (none / 0)

    ...judicial chair.

    it doesn't matter what specter does. he'll get pressed to have the comm approve whoever bush wants, and the dems and moderate republicans (what are those?) have no recourse whatsoever.

    specter gets what he wants, and the dobsonites get theirs too.

  •  Hey, I got an idea! (4.00 / 2)

    Let's put more appeasers in Democratic leadership positions!  Yeah, that's what we need.

    '[Obama] has treated us like adults throughout this primary, and it is time to act like adults.' - John Cole

    by RichM on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:09:53 PM PDT

  •  This is NOTHING, 'cause I heard (none / 0)

    next week they're enacting legislation so that ONLY republican votes can count (based on the fact that God said that only they had the moral mandate of the Corporations of the United States).

    Separation of Church and State AND Corporation

    by Einsteinia on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:24:18 PM PDT

  •  Dear God (none / 0)

    MOve On and organizations like that absolutely have to respond to this - cart out every retired Senator they can find and flood the airwaves.  This is the final piece of tyrany.  

    Tug

    Impeach Cheney now.

    by Tug on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:37:44 PM PDT

  •  What about Dems just going AWOL??? (none / 1)

    Sure it wouldn't do anything for a quorum-

    but what if, just WHAT IF Dems just left town, said "go to it".  

    It can't get much worse.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:43:05 PM PDT

  •  Kerry operation in New Hampshire (none / 0)

    Is there any way the Democrats can leverage the Kerry GOTV operation in New Hampshire to put some pressure on Gregg and/or Sununu to vote against this?

    "Well... you could always hang yourself!"

    by Jugwine on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:53:42 PM PDT

  •  This is where (none / 0)

    a minority leader who knows parliamentary rules lilke the back of his had comes in handy.

    While I know very little about Reid, I have read two facts that I like a great deal..

    First, he knows the rules -- probably better than Frisch.  George Mitchell also knew the rules and used it to good advantage.

    Secondly, he's a boxer.  That means he is probably scrappy.

    "You think you can intimidate me? Screw you. Choose your Weapon." Eliot Spitzer

    by bonddad on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:19:46 PM PDT

  •  I am ready to see this (none / 0)

    See those green states? Look familiar?

    Those were the free states. Those were the states of the union.

    I'm about ready to want it to happen again.

  •  You know, fine (4.00 / 9)

    If I didn't know the court was already lost to us, I'd not say this.  But since I know it is, I think this will be tremendously freeing to Democrats.

    With no real purpose in government anymore, they can argue that 49% of the American public has been cut out of decision making at the national level.

    No more compromising, no more dealmaking.  They don't need us.  We spend all day every day on television, all our Senators, doing nothing but destroying the GOP.

    This will be a poison pill that we should shove down their throats until they choke on it.

    Stephanie Dray
    of Jousting for Justice, a lefty blog with a Maryland tilt.

    by stephdray on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:50:27 PM PDT

  •  Fundamental Logic Breakdown (none / 1)

    So the Senate has a procedure regarded so important as to require a 2/3 majority--and yet the authority to change the 2/3 majority is a simple 50% majority????

    I swear to God we don't have a system of government at all. It's literally nothing but a collection of stone-age suggestions. If we hadn't had 10 times the natural resources per capita of any other major nation, we're so bloody stupid we'd have stumbled into oblivion a century ago.

    Vishnu H. Krishna !!!

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:02:30 PM PDT

  •  could the Republicans... (none / 0)

    ...change the rule for now and then vote to change it back during the 2006 session, before the next round of elections, while they still had the majority? Would there be anything to stop them from doing this?

    They could even change it back to 66 and claim that they just changed it for two years to 'get even' for Democratic changes in '75. They're always 'getting even', those Republicans.

  •  I'm surprised this isn't front-page news (none / 0)

    It is the end of any chance of blocking the theocrat  coup. it is possibly the most important thing coming out of Washington right now, and we have pictures of Bush kissing his new Education Secretary instead.

    Drive-by commenting is such fun!

    by galiel on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:26:37 PM PDT

  •  Welcome to the steam roller (none / 0)

    Let people steal three elections and their bound to think they can take anything. It's animal nature.

    Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present, controls the past. George Orwell

    by moon in the house of moe on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:28:18 PM PDT

  •  Be 'obstructionist'! (none / 0)

    Being from AZ and a Democrat, I don't have a Senator, but if I did, I would want him to be as gummy and obnoxious as possible. The more he foils the GOP agenda the better I'd like him. I can't believe so many Dems are swallowing the GOP's codswallop about Daschle losing to that empty suit Thune because he failed to cooperate with the GOP. What rot. It was homophobia that lost Daschle's seat.

    The voters who we need don't WANT their representatives to cooperate with the corporatist scum. Dem Sentators aren't going to lose support by representing the people who put them in office, even in close states. America is polarized enough that the accusation that you aren't bi-partisan enough is a joke, especially coming from the right. Screw them. Phone in bomb threats if that's what it takes, I want the government shut down. If it's not working in my interest, I don't want it able to work at all.

    George W. Bush does not want you to read the above...

    by mbryan on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:32:17 PM PDT

  •  Here's the problem (none / 1)

    The filibuster was motivated by southern Democratic conservatives back in the 19th century.  It started with the seniority rule -- which was passed as a reform measure (Congress was fairly corrupt in the late 19th century) but which got the support of post-Reconstruction southern whites because legislative seats in the south were frequently uncontested for years.

    Once a population of Southern segregationists haad time to ossify in the Senate, they got control of the Senate rules making process and in steps evolved the 2/3 cloture rule.  The primary use of the filibuster was to stop civil rights laws, at which Southern seggies were most effective for decades.  LBJ rode to the White House (via Jack Kennedy) by cutting the deals that made the 1960s civil rights laws possible.

    The filibuster's status as the preferred obstruction tool of Southern segregationists tended to make its elimination a priority for northern liberals (there were a lot more of them in the Senate before 1980).  The result was the current 60-vote rule.  It is a compromise (necessary to get people like Byrd on board) -- the 2/3 rule was 2/3 of senators voting on the cloture motion (e.g., if 60 senators show up, 41 can break the filibuster); the 60 vote rule now in effect requires 60 senators, no matter who shows up, to break it.

    There is no constitutional basis for the filibuster.  The conservatives have done well for themselves by it and have tended to defend it even when it's used against them.  However, if they smell control of the Supreme Court they will probably be willing to sacrifice this.

    The good news is that Harry Reid, whatever other deficiencies he might have from our perspective, will probably fight this to the bitter death; he is of a generation of Senators that regards the filibuster as a high holy thing.  If Frist pulls this stunt, we might yet have a unified party in a fighting mood.

  •  Smith of OR? (none / 0)

    surely you don't mean this Gordon Smith?  do you?  to wit:

    "It's not John Kerry's fault that he looks French," Smith said. "But it is his fault that he wants to pursue policies that have us act like the French."

    Though Smith used the word "French" as a put-down, he said Wednesday that he finds much to like about France and the rest of the Europe.

    [...]

    At the same time, Smith has long complained that European nations have adopted overly generous social benefits that have raised taxes far above U.S. levels and made it more difficult to create jobs.

    That's the kind of thinking that led to his comments about Kerry.

    "I add up all of his spending proposals, and he doesn't even begin to pay for them by taxing the rich, and what that means is what he has done in the past, and that's to tax everyone," Smith said. "So John Kerry to me represents socialism."

    or perhaps you meant this Gordon Smith, who admittedly is the same man, but who sounds much more reasonable.  perhaps it's because this statement was officially sanctioned campaign propaganda, or maybe something happened in the few months between his reasonable remarks and his more, shall we say, controversial comments.

    my point: gordon smith isn't really that moderate.  sure, he supports hate crimes legislation to protect gays (while supporting the FMA), and, yes, he drafted and passed a bill to work at reducing suicides (after his own son killed himself, for which tragedy i offer my sincerest sympathies), but, really, he is a loyal republican who is less likely to deviate from the party line than, well, arlen specter.

  •  meet the new bosses (none / 0)

    Five on the Floor
    By Dan Kennedy, Boston Phoenix. Posted November 17, 2004.

    "Meet the new Republican senators. Five of them hope to make your worst nightmares come true. ..."

    http://www.alternet.org/election04/20516/

  •  57 Million Disenfranchised People (none / 0)

    Think about it.  The Republicans own the Supreme Court and are rapidly stacking all of the lower courts.  The Republicans, at least until a surprising recount, hold the Presidency.  The Republicans through a combination of bribery, extortion, and blackmail of their own ranks absolutely control the agenda of the House.  The Republicans control the agenda and the votes in the House with the exception of one item, cloture of a filibuster.

    Think about 57 million people whose one lever of power is filibuster in the Senate.  The dreaded filibuster that was the mainstay of Jesse Helms's power, Senator No himself.  When that goes, 57 million people will be paying taxes to an institution that they have token representation but no real power in.

    Bush needs to be told that he does not have the mandate to create a one-party totalitarian state.  And the sooner the better.

  •  xxxxxxxx (none / 0)

    This Administration's idea of compromise and unity is to give y