Skip to main content

Bill Frist admitted that the "nuclear option" is a LIE.  But we'll get to Dr. Frist in a minute.

Why Democrats should stop worrying about the "nuclear option" and love the filibuster, in four easy steps:

  1. The filibuster is constitutional.

  2. The "nuclear option" would require a majority of Senators to vote that the filibuster is unconstitutional.

  3. Bill Frist, on the hallowed floor of the Senate, admitted that the filibuster is constitutional.

  4. Samuel Alito endorses and acts upon legal theories that are unconstitutional, which makes him unfit for the Supreme Court.  

Therefore, the Democrats must filibuster Alito's nomination to the Supreme Court.  It's in their political interest to stand up for the liberty in which they believe, and most of all it's in the interests of every citizen in order that the government run the country according to the Constitution once again.  Democrats must filibuster Alito to restore the rule of law.

On to the meat of the proof, along with a story of Fristian mendacity and Byrdic righteousness...

1. The filibuster is constitutional.

Article I, Section 5, regarding the rules of the House and Senate:

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, [...]

Article II, Section 2, regarding presidential appointments:

[... H]e shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] Judges of the supreme Court, [...]

According to the existing rules of the Senate, it takes a 3/5 majority of all senators to formally end debate (cloture).  

"Advice and Consent" means whatever the Senate rules define it to be.  The Constitution contains no requirement that it be a majority vote.  For example, when the Senate passed its rules, it could have required a 2/3 majority for "consent" to Supreme Court appointments, if it saw fit to do so.

3/5 majority for cloture falls within a reasoned interpretation of "advice and consent."  Therefore, the filibuster is absolutely constitutional.

(Note that there's a counter-argument to be made that rules-mandated supermajorities are unconstitutional because they make prior sessions of the Senate more powerful than the current session, but I think that's a load of crap.  If the rules are the same Senate to Senate, then the relative power is constant too.  Plus, can you imagine the pandemonium if a rules change only required a simple majority?)

2. The "nuclear option" would require a majority of Senators to vote that the filibuster is unconstitutional.

It takes a 2/3 majority to change Senate rules.

It takes a simple majority to sustain a point of order.  In this case the point of order would be that the cloture rule is unconstitutional.

Because the Republicans may not have the 3/5 majority necessary for cloture in the event of a serious Democratic filibuster, and because they certainly don't have the 2/3 majority necessary for a rules change, there is only one other way to preclude a filibuster.  They would have to vote that the cloture rule is unconstitutional, which is a lie per #1.

3. Bill Frist, on the hallowed floor of the Senate, admitted that the filibuster is constitutional.

Here's the entertaining part.  Constitutional orator extraordinaire Robert Byrd had a knock-down, drag-out debate with Bill Frist in the Senate on December 12th (link to search, emphasis mine):  

 Mr. BYRD. I see nothing in the Constitution that requires an up-or-down vote on any nominee. The Constitution just says that the Senate shall have the power, and the Senate uses that power. It is in the Constitution.

   Mr. FRIST. And my response would simply be that the Constitution says advice and consent.

   Mr. BYRD. Yes.

   Mr. FRIST. And I think advice and consent for somebody who has gone through the nomination process, the recommendations, through the Judiciary Committee, hearings, recommended to this floor, I would argue, not written in the Constitution, but under advice and consent, you can't vote with your hands in your pocket. You can't say yes or no.

   Mr. BYRD. The Constitution doesn't say that.

   Mr. FRIST. I would argue that the dignity of this institution has worked for 214 years. So why deny it? Especially why deny it with a qualified nominee like Alito.

   Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

   Mr. FRIST. I would be happy to.

   Mr. BYRD. All this business about us working for 214 years, there have been a lot of misquotations of history when people talk like that. I say that a Senator has a right under the Constitution to object for whatever reasons--they may not be plausible reasons--to object to any nominee he wishes. The Constitution says the Senate has the power of advice and consent. So it doesn't say how that consent will be measured. It doesn't say it has to be an up-or-down vote. Nothing in the history, nothing in the Constitution says that. If you can point that out in the Constitution to me, where it says that a nominee shall have the right to an up-or-down vote--can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me?

   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, if the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would let me answer, I would be happy to.

   Mr. BYRD. Yes.

   Mr. FRIST. It is not in the Constitution that a Senator specifically has the right for an up-or-down vote. I am saying the dignity of the institution to give advice and consent deserves an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. What the Constitution does say--which is why it is called the constitutional option, not because it is written in the Constitution--is that this body makes its own rules. The constitutional option is basically just that. You take it to this body and you say: Do these Senators deserve an up-or-down vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Let's vote on that.

   Mr. BYRD. No.


   Mr. FRIST. Mr. President, it doesn't say in the Constitution that you can vote; it says you can give advice and consent and that the Senate makes the rules as to whether you vote or not. We just disagree. Obviously, this goes back to the whole filibuster argument for judicial nominees. I simply believe in the principle that once someone comes to the floor, they deserve, in order to give advice and consent, an up-or-down vote.

So, there it is.  It's merely Frist's predilection that judicial nominees be guaranteed a simple majority vote.  As Frist explicitly admitted, nowhere is it mandated in the Constitution, and the Senate rules don't require it, so there is no statutory guarantee.  Somehow I don't remember reading the part in the Constitution that said "Frist no likey" was a basis for deeming something unconstitutional.  

4. Samuel Alito endorses and acts upon legal theories that are unconstitutional, which makes him unfit for the Supreme Court.  

Alito believes that the executive branch's interpretation of a law should carry equal weight as the legislative branch that drafted, debated, and passed that law (to the point that Bush has been issuing "signing statements" as he signs laws which directly contradict the intent of said laws).  This is utter bullshit--the legislative branch makes the law, and the executive carries it out.  Can you imagine how this would work in the case of a law that was passed over a presidential veto?

Alito believes in the supremacy of executive power.  Most anything is justified in the name of "protecting" the country.  This is precisely the recipe for tyranny trending toward totalitarianism.  

Democrats must filibuster the Alito nomination in order to preserve the reign of the Constitution and the rule of law.  Should the Senate Republicans proceed with the "nuclear option," then they will have revealed to all that the rule of law truly holds no longer, and that this government is one of men and power rather than laws and justice.  Democrats can lead public opinion rather than follow it and throw a barrel of cold water on a Republican leadership drunk with power.  

Originally posted to Simplify on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 02:21 AM PST.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I am 100% in agreement with you on this. (none)
  •  Excellent diary. (none)
    Do you have an example of Alito acting on his belief that the exec branch interpretation of law equals the Congress.  Was it his support for the signing statements?

    IANAL, and I didn't see all the hearings.  The executive power grab really scares me.  

    •  Executive Power (none)
      That is what should scare us all!

      Over-turning wade is a very valid concern, I have 2 young girls, I know...

      Siding ruling against the "little guy" (most of the time dissenting, BTW) is a big concern...

      But his position on Executive Power is downright frightening!

    •  Signing statements (none)
      Yup, that's the one.  (Too sleepy to find linky-links...)  Alito's similarity to Yoo is really scary.  On an individual level, his opinion on the unarmed fleeing suspect who was shot in the back by police was truly appalling.  

      Just because we can, that doesn't mean we should.

      by Simplify on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 02:46:21 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a bluff anyway... (4.00)
    Do Frist and the rest of the wingnuts really want to face the prospect of what the lack of filibuster authority would do WHEN they are in the minority (which will be soon)?

    If the good guys, the patriotic Americans, don't filibuster, Alito definitely is confirmed. But if they filibuster, there is a chance - I maintain, a very good chance - that Frist's bluff is successfully called and Alito goes down in flames.

    In any case, some chance of "no Alito" is better than NO chance of "no Alito".

    Alito is the worst, most terrifying issue to confront the US senate in my lifetime. What are we "saving" the filibuster for?

  •  Keep in mind that this is on the eve of the SOTU (none)
    I really don't think the President want's to appear at the SOTU and address the assembled Congress half of who have just advised him that they have no confidence in his nominee to the Supreme Court.

    Even the Supreme Court, who despite their very conservative nature and the fact that they selected him to be president in Gore vs Bush, have now begun telling him that, NO Mr President, we are a nation of Laws.

    We do have a constitution, and you are not entitled to kidnap, torture, murder, hold indefinitely without due process or unreasionably search and seize the propertyt of American citizens.

    The people of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast who are still living in third world conditions must have grave doubts and concerns about his competence to do anything.

    The conservatively fiscal people who form his base must have some questions about an economy that has seen the puncture of the housing bubble and a government that will run out of money in February.

    His troops who have been simply abused to the breaking point, put in the field without the proper equipment, poisoned by Halliburton, had their tours extended and their pay and benefits and housing allowances cut and their families needs not taken care of and finally been sent home pieces missing common carrier with no coverage of the terrible burden placed upon them certainly must have some questions.

    At this point when he begins his usual lying he may well be confronted with his Congress and certainly a large part of his audience at home shouting IMPEACH the LIAR !!!

  •  The quivering lips of Brent Bozell (none)
    Can anyone find some of the Brent Bozell videos from the Clinton days when he always looked like he was about to start crying?

    It just might be  a good reminder of how the Rethuglicants act when they don't get their way.

    Eitherr those or ones of Mark Levin looking like he's going to have an on-air heart attack or stroke.

    "I will to God sing aloud, for He so well to me hath done." The 13th Psalm/Franz Liszt

    by grada3784 on Thu Jan 26, 2006 at 05:11:35 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site