It's Time To Go Nuclear

The cat's out of the bag.  As TyroneSlothrup just reported in his lastest diary, Bill Frist and the Repugs in the Senate have decided to get rid of the 60-vote requirement to end a filibuster on judicial nominees.

Since the election, we haven't had the right issue to fight the Repugs on.  THIS IS IT.  It's time to go nuclear.  Why?  Judicial nominations matter.  Chief Justice Rehnquist was appointed to the Supreme Court by Nixon in 1972.  That's 32 years ago!  For 32 years, that bastard has been trying to restrict our liberties.  He voted against Roe v. Wade.  He voted to invalidate the Violence Against Women Act.  He twice voted to permit states to criminalize sodomy.  He voted for Bush in Bush v. Gore.  He voted to restrict the Americans with Disabilities Act.  He voted to severely restrict affirmative action.

(more in extended entry)

If the Repugs succeed in getting rid of the 60-vote requirement, they will stuff the courts--not just the Supreme Court, but the lower courts--with judges like Rehnquist.  There are currently 29 federal court vacancies, and you can believe that a lot of Nixon and Reagan appointees will retire during Bush's second term.  Moreover, the GOP could expand the number of judgeships to pack the courts even further with right-wing ideologues.

WE MUST STAND AND FIGHT ON THIS ISSUE.  Even if we defeat bush in 2008, these nominees could take away our rights for the next 30 years.

It won't be easy to stop the Repugs from doing this. We won't be able to filibuster this rule change--they can do it with a simple majority of Senators by having the presiding officer declare that only 51 votes is needed to end a filibuster. We would need 51 votes to overturn that determination. That means our focus should be (1) getting six Repugs to vote against this change and (2) telling our side to fight by filibustering other Repug legislation (which is still subject to the 60-vote rule) until we can convince the Repugs to give up. That's going nuclear, sure--but it's the only choice we have. What can we do?  Start contacting Senators and tell them that you want them to fight to the death against this rule:

Reid, Harry - (D - NV)
528 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Email form: http://reid.senate.gov/email_form.cfm

Durbin, Richard - (D - IL)
332 DIRKSEN SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Email Form: http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

Other contact information for senators is here:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

We don't just need to contact Dem Senators.  Start contacting moderate Repugs:

Chafee, Lincoln - (R - RI)
141A RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Email Form: chafee.senate.gov/webform.htm

Collins, Susan - (R - ME)
172 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Email Form: collins.senate.gov/low/contactemail.htm

Snowe, Olympia - (R - ME)
154 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Specter, Arlen - (R - PA)
711 HART SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

McCain, John - (R - AZ)
241 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Email Form: mccain.senate.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=Contact.Home

Hagel, Chuck - (R - NE)
248 RUSSELL SENATE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON DC 20510
[phone]
Email Form: hagel.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Offices.Contact

Let Dems and moderate Repugs know that they MUST TAKE A STAND HERE.

•  Anyone out there agree?

  I think we have to make our stand here.  We need to do more than just email/call senators.  Any ideas?

  by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:23:15 PM PDT

•  They will fight this rule, but they will lose.

  We don't have the votes to stop a rule change anymore.  Not with "Mr Cooperative" Arlen Spector.
  It might be for the best, though.  Maybe then it will sink in to the DC dems what we are dealing with.

  by Cheez Whiz on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:27:49 PM PDT

  •  What about this idea

    The Repugs just want to change the rule for judicial nominations only.  They know that the filibuster more generally is a good thing for conservatives, because it prevents us from changing the country for the better when we're in power.

    What we need to do is filibuster everything else if the Repugs want to change this rule.  Literally, we should hold up everything they want to do.  Make it clear to them that we're willing to do whatever it takes, period.

    Don't you think this could work?  We just need our side to have enough backbone.

    by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:32:48 PM PDT

    •  That might work.

      I am happy to let the Repugs have their way on most things, but to simultaneously lay out an alternate agenda.  Filibuster the big things.  On other things you carp, and criticize and talk up your solutions, but you don't try and obstruct everything.

      It's how opposition parties work in a parliamentary democracy and we'd do well to emulate it.

      by Cheez Whiz on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:41:35 PM PDT

      •  Overall I agree

        I agree with you ... the only problem with this thing (changing the filibuster rule) is that we can't filibuster it.  The way they're going to do it by having the presiding officer declare that 51 breaks a filibuster--which means that we have to get a majority to overturn that determination, which we can't do.

        So we need to filibuster something else, something that matters for the Repugs, until they give up the fight to change the filibuster rule for judicial nominations.

        by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:45:41 PM PDT

        •  again, a fair point...

          but what is to stop them from simply defining away the filibuster in all situations?  The senate makes its own rules, it can do this.

          by Cheez Whiz on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:49:19 PM PDT

          •  They could

            You're right, they could.  But they don't want to do it, because the filibuster is the only thing that stops us from doing what we want when we're in power.

            The filibuster is a conservative rule, by it's very nature.  It requires a supermajority to get anything done.  The Republicans know that they're in power now, but if they ever lose power they'll regret getting rid of the filibuster more generally, because once it's gone it will be hard to resurrect.

            What we want to do is raise the cost for them if they want to change this rule.  Make them change it everywhere, and make them get bad publicity, and just altogether make their life hell.  If they're going to do this, force them to spend a lot of political capitol doing it.

            There are a lot of things that aren't worth going nuclear on.  Most things aren't.  This is so important that it's an exception, I think.

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

            •  here is the problem

              Even if the republicans don't want to eliminate the filiubster rule so that its there when they are in the minority, what guarantee do they have that it will still be there when they want it?  There would be nothing stopping the democrats for eliminating the filibuster when they have the votes to do it.  Republicans would be leaving the rule in place as a good will gesture, but I really don't think that is likely because they simply wouldn't trust the democrats to leave it in when the rule became invconvenient.

              by Damon on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:46:50 PM PDT

              •  Interesting

                I'm not so sure.  After all, we had the Senate Majority from the 60s to the 90s (with some brief interruptions) and we never outright eliminated the filibuster rule.

                Plus, if we make a ruckus now, it will make both sides reluctant to get rid of the filibuster.  If we're actually successful, the conventional wisdom will be "it's too tough/costly to get rid of the filibuster."

                I think the GOP is doing a cost/benefit analysis right now with the filibuster more generally.  They think that eliminating the filibuster for all legislation might be too costly, or (more likely, in my view) they might think that the filibuster is a good thing overall.  I just want to make getting rid of the filibuster for judicial nominations more costly for them, so they'll back off.  Force them to choose between this and the rest of their agenda.

                by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:57:30 PM PDT

                •  once again

                  there has been a downward spiral on this issue for a long time.  Maybe starting with Reagan making a campaign promise to have conservatives on the court or with Bork or Thomas, but it has been getting worse and worse over time.  When Clinton had a democratic senate, the republicans didn't filibuster any democratic judges.  The democrats have filibustered 11 out of 18 circuit court appointees from Bush.  I just don't see how it could possibly improve from here on out.  

                  But lets say that the republicans leave the filibuster in place, and just use the threat of the nuclear option to pass through more judges than than they were able to do in Bush's first term but leave the rule intact.  Some time in the future the democrats gain control of the senate and the presidency, and the republicans go to filiubster a supreme court justice.  Do you really think that people here wouldn't be climbing the walls for the democrats to use the nuclear option to change the rules?  That people would be talking about how spineless the dems are for not invoking it when they have the votes?  And for the republicans- they know the democrats already used the option once when they needed the bar lowered, I just don't see what reason they would have to think the democrats wouldn't use it again in the future if it was on an issue they considered to be important enough.  

                  If there was any way to make a compromise binding on future sessions of the senate, I could see the republicans leaving the rule in place.  But in a situation like this where the republicans have a structural senate advantage (more red states) and no guarantee of the rule being there when they want it, I just think the nuclear option is inevitable unless the democrats virtually lay down and literally only pick one or 2 spots to block.

                  by Damon on Thu Nov 18, 2004 at 05:57:53 AM PDT

    •  if they did this

      The problem is that if they did this, there is nothing stopping them from using the nuclear option again to get rid of the filibuster rule completely.  If democrats are really trying to use 45 senators to shut down the senate compeltely, there would be more public support for changing the rules than if they pick their spots.  But at some point you simply can't hope for public opinion to be on your side and you need to do anything you can to raise the visibility of the issue.

      by Damon on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:57:31 PM PDT

•  But don't they need even

  more votes than 60 to change a rule?

  by Marie on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:29:14 PM PDT

  •  Nope

    They just need a bare majority.  :(  But for a lot of reasons, they haven't dared to do this before.  One reason is because they know we would go bezerk.  The other is that in general the filibuster has helped Repugs block us from doing things in the past--they're wary about undoing a block on government that they cannot redo if we win in 2008.

    But they're confident--overconfident--now and so they're willing to take a risk.  I say that we make this the most expensive risk they've ever taken.  Make them fight like hell for this.

    by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:34:36 PM PDT

•  Please correct your diary

  Sen. Durbin's contact page is at

  http://durbin.senate.gov/sitepages/contact.htm

  by thesill on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:36:52 PM PDT

  •  Done.

    Thanks for catching that.

    by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:38:56 PM PDT

    •  Also - add McCain to your list.

      Don't we need 6 moderate GoOPers in bare majority is all they need?  McCain would be 5, who else?

      by VirginiaDem on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:42:29 PM PDT

      •  I'll add McCain

        I'll add McCain now.  We have to do some research to figure out a sixth (and hopefully seventh and eighth) to target.

        by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:50:49 PM PDT

        •  Not that they will listen to us...

          ...but Chuck Hagel would be someone to add to your list.  Ultimately, "moderate" and "reasonable" Republicans will do whatever their leadership tells them to do.

          by CA Pol Junkie on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:04:42 PM PDT

          •  Adding him now

            I know this is an uphill battle, but so was Sinclair--at first.  If we raise hell, maybe we'll give some of the moderate Republicans cover to vote against the change because it's "divisive."

            by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:15:42 PM PDT

•  Can't they filibuster a rule change?

  anyway, I sorta think the moderate GoOpers won't go for this.  Of course, we'd need 6 to vote against Frist, if my calculation is right.
  

  by VirginiaDem on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:41:17 PM PDT

  •  aoeu

    No, my understanding is that they get the Parlimentarian to "decide" that the rule does not apply tojudicial nominations.  Then the Dems say "hey wait no that's wrong" then the senate votes on whether or not the parlimentarian's decision is right, a simple majority is all that's needed to confirm the Parlimentarian's decision.

    by TealVeal on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:48:26 PM PDT

  •  Unfortunately we can't

    Sadly we can't filibuster the rule change because they're going to make the change by having the presiding officer declare that 51 breaks a filibuster.  We will object to that determination, but we have to get a majority to overturn it, which we can't do.

    We need to either (1) get six Repugs to switch on this issue or (2) filibuster other things until the Repugs (or at least six Repugs) give up.

    by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:48:49 PM PDT

    •  Ok, another question for everyone.

      This is more re strategy - should we wait until the nominations start coming and Frist's threat becomes more imminent to do this?

      by VirginiaDem on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:23:06 PM PDT

      •  Good question

        This is a matter of debate, I think.

        The reason I think we should start now is that it's going to take a while for us to build critical mass and start influencing the people who matter.  It took us at least a couple of weeks to get the ball rolling against Sinclair, and this is a much bigger fight.

        The Repugs have been planning this for a while--a GOP friend of mine mentioned it to me on Nov. 4.  I'd rather start building up our opposition now so we're ready when this happens--it won't be long, because Bush has already nominated many judges who have been held up for a while.

        by Philosopher on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 02:27:42 PM PDT

        •  ok.

          by VirginiaDem on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:28:21 PM PDT

•  Any chance

  Any chance that Gregg or Sununu in New Hampshire will go against this?  I know they're the most partisan of the New England Republicans, but NH did go for Kerry and Lynch, after all.

  by Jugwine on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 01:48:30 PM PDT

•  How much could we raise

  How much money could we raise for a 527/PAC that was dedicated to running anti-Republican ads all over the country on television and radio?

  We can't fight this one because the Right-wing corporate media has called the Democrats "Obstructionists."  Nobody knows about the committee rules that Hatch changed to disallow holds on judges by senators from the judge's home state or holds on judges by minority members of the judicial committee - powers given to the Republican Minority under Bush, Reagan, and early Clinton years but taken away from the Democrats when the Republicans controlled the Senate under Bush.  We need to go nuclear now - but against the Republican party.  The RWCM will not cover our issues, they are "media" not "press" and will not cover things unless their bosses thinkit is profitable to do so and the Republicans approve.  The only way to get our message out is to advertise.

  Anyone who has worked on a political campaign - what does a spot cost to produce (and focus group if you know that).

  -Fred

  by FredFred on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:04:02 PM PDT

•  The Judges Should Not Make The Final Decision.

  It is clear that the judges do not cease to be political animals just because they wear the black robes. The 2000 election decision made that point crystal clear. All of the current agonizing about judges makes it clearer still.

  In the absence of any moderation, a Democratic Congress will someday have to fix this -- and it will not be very hard to fix. All Congress would have to do would be to legislate that every decision of the court be made by people who are not part of the political process of -- in other words, by Jurors. The Congress could easily pass a law that would empower Supreme Court Juries (composed of, say, 100 citizens chosen at complete random for each case) to make a final decision as to whether any given decision by the court could only apply in a single instance, or, on the other hand, could serve as a precedent.

  This is the only sensible solution in the long run. We must do something reasonable about the current, absurdly unreasonable way in which the Court affects our society.

  by blues on Wed Nov 17, 2004 at 03:22:21 PM PDT