Tuesday, November 01, 2005
The Day Democrats Said Enough
Posted by Bob BrighamEvery Republican Senator should be on notice, today isn't like yesterday. Tomorrow won't be either. We have new rules, Democrats with spine, and enough is enough. Today, Harry Reid attempted to end the cover-up surrounding how the Administration lied to the American people while fabricating a case for a needless war. Kos says:
Reid asked the Senate to go into special session on intelligence -- that is, a closed session -- to discuss prewar intelligence. This mostion, along with a second (provided by Durbin), requires all Senators to report to the Senate floor. It is a non-debatable motion.Cue in lots of hystrionics from Frist and company. Republicans whined that this was a violation of Senate tradition. This coming from the gang that wants to eliminate the judicial filibuster. Frist whined that he wasn't consulted. As though Democrats have had a seat at the table in this Congress. They want to play hardball? Fine. Reid sent notice that he can play that game as well.
Frist whined, "Senator Daschle never did anything like this." Damn right. A new sheriff is in town.
Now, this is more than a temporary stunt. The Democratic leadership has promised to call a special session in the Senate every single day until Republicans alllow for a real investigation.
So let's see what we have here --
Democrats showing leadership and fight. Very nice. Democrats creating a media narrative around Republican stonewalling of a real investigation into pre-war intelligence. Also very nice. Republicans getting a taste of things to come if they initiate the nuclear option? Very crafty.
Here are some quick facts on Rule 21:
KEY FACTS ON SECRET SESSIONS OF THE SENATE
* Since 1929, the Senate has held 53 secret sessions, generally for reasons of national security.
* For example, in 1997 the Senate held a secret session to consider the Chemical Weapons Convention (treaty).
* In 1992, the Senate met in secret session to consider “most favored nation” trade status for China.
* In 1988, a session was held to consider the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty and in 1983 a session was held on Nicaragua.
* In 1942, a secret session was held on navy plans to build battleships and aircraft carriers, and in 1943 a secret session was held on reports from the war fronts.
* Six of the most recent secret sessions, however, were held during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton.
SENATE RULES ON SECRET SESSIONS
* During a secret session, the doors of the chamber are closed, and the chamber and its galleries are cleared of all individuals except Members and those officers and employees specified in the rules or essential to the session.
* Standing Senate Rules 21, 29, and 31 cover secret sessions for legislative and executive business. Rule 21 calls for the Senate to close its doors once a motion is made and seconded. The motion is not debatable, and its disposition is made behind closed doors.
Reid's full statement in the extended entry.
Reid ask to go into special session on intelligence to discuss intelligence failures and the war in Iraq. Statement belowStatement by Senator Reid
Troops and Security FirstThis past weekend, we witnessed the indictment of the I. Lewis Libby, the Vice President's Chief of Staff and a senior Advisor to President Bush. Libby is the first sitting White House staffer to be indicted in 135 years. This indictment raises very serious charges. It asserts this Administration engaged in actions that both harmed our national security and are morally repugnant.
The decision to place U.S. soldiers in harm's way is the most significant responsibility the Constitution invests in the Congress. The Libby indictment provides a window into what this is really about: how the Administration manufactured and manipulated intelligence in order to sell the war in Iraq and attempted to destroy those who dared to challenge its actions.
As a result of its improper conduct, a cloud now hangs over this Administration. This cloud is further darkened by the Administration's mistakes in prisoner abuse scandal, Hurricane Katrina, and the cronyism and corruption in numerous agencies.
And, unfortunately, it must be said that a cloud also hangs over this Republican-controlled Congress for its unwillingness to hold this Republican Administration accountable for its misdeeds on all of these issues.
Let's take a look back at how we got here with respect to Iraq Mr. President. The record will show that within hours of the terrorist attacks on 9/11, senior officials in this Administration recognized these attacks could be used as a pretext to invade Iraq.
The record will also show that in the months and years after 9/11, the Administration engaged in a pattern of manipulation of the facts and retribution against anyone who got in its way as it made the case for attacking Iraq.
There are numerous examples of how the Administration misstated and manipulated the facts as it made the case for war. Administration statements on Saddam's alleged nuclear weapons capabilities and ties with Al Qaeda represent the best examples of how it consistently and repeatedly manipulated the facts.
The American people were warned time and again by the President, the Vice President, and the current Secretary of State about Saddam's nuclear weapons capabilities. The Vice President said Iraq "has reconstituted its nuclear weapons." Playing upon the fears of Americans after September 11, these officials and others raised the specter that, left unchecked, Saddam could soon attack America with nuclear weapons.
Obviously we know now their nuclear claims were wholly inaccurate. But more troubling is the fact that a lot of intelligence experts were telling the Administration then that its claims about Saddam's nuclear capabilities were false.
The situation was very similar with respect to Saddam's links to Al Qaeda. The Vice President told the American people, "We know he's out trying once again to produce nuclear weapons and we know he has a longstanding relationship with various terrorist groups including the Al Qaeda organization."The Administration's assertions on this score have been totally discredited. But again, the Administration went ahead with these assertions in spite of the fact that the government's top experts did not agree with these claims.
What has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress to the Administration's manipulation of intelligence that led to this protracted war in Iraq? Basically nothing. Did the Republican-controlled Congress carry out its constitutional obligations to conduct oversight? No. Did it support our troops and their families by providing them the answers to many important questions? No. Did it even attempt to force this Administration to answer the most basic questions about its behavior? No.
Unfortunately the unwillingness of the Republican-controlled Congress to exercise its oversight responsibilities is not limited to just Iraq. We see it with respect to the prisoner abuse scandal. We see it with respect to Katrina. And we see it with respect to the cronyism and corruption that permeates this Administration.
Time and time again, this Republican-controlled Congress has consistently chosen to put its political interests ahead of our national security. They have repeatedly chosen to protect the Republican Administration rather than get to the bottom of what happened and why.
There is also another disturbing pattern here, namely about how the Administration responded to those who challenged its assertions. Time and again this Administration has actively sought to attack and undercut those who dared to raise questions about its preferred course.
For example, when General Shinseki indicated several hundred thousand troops would be needed in Iraq, his military career came to an end. When then OMB Director Larry Lindsay suggested the cost of this war would approach $200 billion, his career in the Administration came to an end. When U.N. Chief Weapons Inspector Hans Blix challenged conclusions about Saddam's WMD capabilities, the Administration pulled out his inspectors. When Nobel Prize winner and IAEA head Mohammed el-Baridei raised questions about the Administration's claims of Saddam's nuclear capabilities, the Administration attempted to remove him from his post. When Joe Wilson stated that there was no attempt by Saddam to acquire uranium from Niger, the Administration launched a vicious and coordinated campaign to demean and discredit him, going so far as to expose the fact that his wife worked as a CIA agent.
Given this Administration's pattern of squashing those who challenge its misstatements, what has been the response of this Republican-controlled Congress? Again, absolutely nothing. And with their inactions, they provide political cover for this Administration at the same time they keep the truth from our troops who continue to make large sacrifices in Iraq.
This behavior is unacceptable. The toll in Iraq is as staggering as it is solemn. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives. Over 90 Americans have paid the ultimate sacrifice this month alone - the fourth deadliest month since the war began. More than 15,000 have been wounded. More than 150,000 remain in harm's way. Enormous sacrifices have been and continue to be made.
The troops and the American people have a right to expect answers and accountability worthy of that sacrifice. For example, 40 Senate Democrats wrote a substantive and detailed letter to the President asking four basic questions about the Administration's Iraq policy and received a four sentence answer in response. These Senators and the American people deserve better.
They also deserve a searching and comprehensive investigation about how the Bush Administration brought this country to war. Key questions that need to be answered include:
o How did the Bush Administration assemble its case for war against Iraq?
o Who did Bush Administration officials listen to and who did they ignore?
o How did senior Administration officials manipulate or manufacture intelligence presented to the Congress and the American people?
o What was the role of the White House Iraq Group or WHIG, a group of senior White House officials tasked with marketing the war and taking down its critics?
o How did the Administration coordinate its efforts to attack individuals who dared to challenge the Administration's assertions?
o Why has the Administration failed to provide Congress with the documents that will shed light on their misconduct and misstatements?Unfortunately the Senate committee that should be taking the lead in providing these answers is not. Despite the fact that the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee publicly committed to examine many of these questions more than 1 and ½ years ago, he has chosen not to keep this commitment. Despite the fact that he restated that commitment earlier this year on national television, he has still done nothing.
At this point, we can only conclude he will continue to put politics ahead of our national security. If he does anything at this point, I suspect he will play political games by producing an analysis that fails to answer any of these important questions. Instead, if history is any guide, this analysis will attempt to disperse and deflect blame away from the Administration.
We demand that the Intelligence Committee and other committees in this body with jurisdiction over these matters carry out a full and complete investigation immediately as called for by Democrats in the committee's annual intelligence authorization report. Our troops and the American people have sacrificed too much. It is time this Republican-controlled Congress put the interests of the American people ahead of their own political interests.
Indeed. In terms of the 2006 mid-term elections, it is important to note that Democrats have the high-ground:
Democratic Efforts to Address Misuse of Intelligence Have Been Repeatedly Blocked by Republicans
For more than two years, Senate Democrats have pressed Republicans to address the misuse of intelligence. At every turn, Republicans have blocked efforts to investigate how intelligence was used in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Below details the long record established by Democrats to investigate this matter.March 14, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Mueller requesting an investigation into the origin of the Niger documents.
May 23, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to the CIA and State Department Inspectors General to review issues related to the Niger documents.
June 2, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller issued a press release endorsing a statement made of the previous weekend by Senator Warner calling for a joint SSCI/SASC investigation.
June 4, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller issued a press release saying he would push for an investigation. Senator Roberts issued a press release saying calls for an investigation are premature.
June 10, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts asking for an investigation.
June 11, 2003 – All Committee Democrats signed a letter to Senator Roberts asking for a meeting of the Committee to discuss the question of authorizing an inquiry into the intelligence that formed the basis for going to war.
June 11, 2003 – Senator Roberts issued a press release saying this is routine committee oversight, and that criticism of the intelligence community is unwarranted. Senator Rockefeller issued a press release calling the ongoing review inadequate.
June 20, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release laying out the scope of the inquiry.
August 13, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts making 14 points about the investigation, asking to expand the inquiry to address the “use of intelligence by policy makers” and asking for several other actions.
September 9, 2003 – After press reports quoting Senator Roberts as saying the investigation was almost over, Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts urging him not to rush to complete the investigation prematurely.
October 29, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet expressing in strong terms that he should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available.
October 30, 2003 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller sent letters to Secretaries Rumsfeld and Powell, and National Security Advisor Rice expressing in strong terms that they should provide documents that have been requested and make individuals available.
October 31, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for documents related to the interaction between intelligence and policy makers, including the documents from the Vice President’s office related to the Powell speech.
November 2, 2003 – Senator Roberts made statements during a joint television appearance with Senator Rockefeller claiming that the White house would provide all documents they jointly requested.
December 5, 2003 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to National Security Advisor Rice asking for her help getting documents and access to individuals.
January 22, 2004 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents.
February 12, 2004 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller issued a joint press release announcing the Committee’s unanimous approval of the expansion of the Iraq review, to include use of intelligence in the form of public statements, and listing other aspects of what became Phase II.
March 23, 2004 – Senator Rockefeller sent yet another letter to Director Tenet asking for compliance with the Oct. 31 request for documents.
June 17, 2004 – Senators Roberts and Rockefeller joint press release announcing the unanimous approval of the report.
July 16, 2004 – Committee Democrats sent a letter to Bush asking for the one page summary of the NIE prepared for Bush. The Committee staff had been allowed to review it but could not take notes and the Committee was never given a copy.
February 3, 2005 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts outlining Committee priorities for the coming year and encouraging completion of Phase II.
August 5, 2005 – Senator Rockefeller sent a letter to Senator Roberts expressing concern over the lack of progress on Phase II and calling for a draft to be presented to the Committee at a business meeting in September.
September 29, 2005 – All Committee Democrats joined in additional views to the annual Intelligence Authorization Bill criticizing the lack of progress on Phase II.
With actions like this, I think we will soon be hearing the title Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Posted at 04:14 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Culture of Corruption, Nuclear Option, Republicans, Scandals, Supreme Court | TrackBack (0) | Technorati
Tuesday, July 19, 2005
SCOTUS: Ethically Challenged John Roberts (Another Partisan Hack)
Posted by Tim TagarisAn ethically challenged lawyer appointed by an ethically challenged "win-at-all-cost" administration.
U.S. v. Smithfield Foods - Roberts representing a pork processing company against Clean Water Act violations. This is what the court had to say about Roberts the litigator:
"The mischaracterization and distortion of this Memorandum is frustrating to the court. Quotes are being taken out of context, and it appears that words are being conveniently deleted or added for purposes of argument." "A totally misleading argument presented to this court."
I am not sure the amount of cases he has argued is very compelling if that is the way that he argues them.
UPDATE: Roberts on Roe v. Wade -- Brief field in Rust v. Sullivan
"We continue to believe that Roe was wrongfully decided and should be overturned." "[T]he Court's conclusions i Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."
UPDATE (Bob) John Aravosis has info from NARAL Pro-Choice America on John Roberts and the huge oppo file from Alliance for Justice on John Roberts.
UPDATE (Tim) Aravosis has more, including Roberts' weak resume, and militant crusade to erode a woman's right to privacy, choice, and apparently right to live free from violence.
UPDATE (Tim) Jeralyn already debunks the Right's first talking point, that he was approved by the Senate to the Appeals Court overhwlemingly.
UPDATE (Bob) Here is PFAW on John Roberts (PDF)
UPDATE (Bob) Update the dkosopedia page on John Roberts and the Wikipedia page on John Roberts.
UPDATE (Bob) The John G. Robert's 2003 Confirmation Hearings
UPDATE (Bob Chris Bowers is right, John Roberts is a Partisan Hack:
The Bush administration has clearly stepped up the nomination of John Roberts in order to deflect attention from Karl Rove. Really, it makes sense. One partisan hack is deflecting attention from another.Karl Rove is a lifetime Republican operative. John Roberts has been filing briefs and providing legal support for recounts (Roberts worked for Bush-Cheney 2000 in Florida) on behalf of Republicans for two decades. John Roberts is a partisan hack taking the heat for another partisan hack. He has only been a judge for two years. He has been a partisan Republican hack for twenty years.
The Bush administration was elected by the Supreme Court, and now it is electing a member of its campaign team to the Supreme Court in order to deflect attention away from ethics violations by the head of its campaign team, Karl Rove. The is partisan hackery at its best. The Bush administration has decided to treat the Supreme Court as an ambassadorship.
And so the fight is enjoined--the Bush administration wants to nominate a partisan hack who helped elect Bush to the Supreme Court, which elected Bush, in order to deflect attention from possible the possibly treasonous activates of another partisan hack who led the Bush campaign in 2000 and 2004. And so this is our fight--the Supreme Court is not the Northern Mariana Islands. The Supreme Court is not a way to reward those who helped get you elected. The Supreme Court is not a way to help deflect attention from the ethics violations of those who helped elect you. The Supreme Court is not a place for partisan hacks, but the Bush administration thinks it is. And so this is our fight--country over partisanship. And so it begins.
Howard Dean (from a press release):
Washington - Faced with a growing scandal surrounding the involvement of Deputy White House chief of Staff Karl Rove and Vice President Cheney's Chief of Staff Lewis Libby in the leaking the identity of a covert CIA operative, President Bush announced his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court late this evening. Democratic National Chairman Howard Dean today issued the following statement on the nomination:"It is disappointing that when President Bush had the chance to bring the country together, he instead turned to a nominee who may have impressive legal credentials, but also has sharp partisan credentials that cannot be ignored.
"Democrats take very seriously the responsibility to protect the individual rights of all Americans and are committed to ensuring that ideological judicial activists are not appointed to the Supreme Court. The Senate Judiciary Committee will now have the opportunity to see if Judge Roberts can put his partisanship aside, and live up to a Supreme Court Justice's duty to uphold the rights and freedoms of every American and the promise of equal justice for all."
Posted at 08:02 PM in Activism, DNC Chair, General, Netroots, Nuclear Option, Plamegate, Scandals, Supreme Court | Technorati
Monday, June 27, 2005
Nuclear Option Redux
Posted by Bob BrighamTomorrow at 10:30 AM, Senator Bill Frist will be speaking at the Heritage Foundation. On Friday's Inside Politics, Bob Novak said that the speech would serve to kick-off another "nuclear option" war.
Judging by how the event is being billed, friends of the institution of the Senate should be very worried about the next Frist Holy War.
Posted at 02:15 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
SCOTUS: Re-Draw the Battle Lines or Cease Fire?
Posted by Tim TagarisToday's the big day. Will Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist retire? How about Justice Sandra Day O'Connor? Big decisions on several issues including protecting journalists from revealing sources, "The Ten Commandments," file sharing, and the death penalty.
Hopefully David will have something at some point in the near future on some of the decisions. Until then, follow the "court wire" for up to the minute information.
As for the retirements; I am ready for another fight.
UPDATE: Supreme Court rules against 10 Commandmnents Displays (Kentucky Case). We are still waiting to see if there is a retirement today. If there is, rest assured, the Fristians will use this decision as a rallying cry.
UPDATE 2: Supreme Court decides against hearing reporters cases in Valerie Plame case.
UPDATE3: File sharing companies liable for file-swapping (eh, David corrects me on Kos--this decision only means that a case against a company can go to trial).
UPDATE 4: Instead of covering the Supreme Court decisions and possible retirements, CNN and Fox News have found it perfectly reasonable to air some mass murderer's painstaking descriptions of 10 counts of murder, how he did each, in detail, and his sexual fantasies while he was killing them.
This could be a new low.
UPDATE 5: Supreme Court rules that you can display the 10 Commandments outside the Texas State House(Texas case).
UPDATE 6: Supreme Court adjourns with no retirements announced.
Posted at 09:49 AM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
New Spectator Sport: Watching Zealot Mental Breakdowns
Posted by Bob BrighamAll across America, people are beginning to understand that the zealots who lead the Republican Party will stop at nothing to ensure a one party political system. Senator Bill Frist and Congressman Tom DeLay have no respect for the rules, no respect for cooperation, no respect for debate. All they care about is forcing their extremist views upon America.
With great pleasure I've been watching the GOP response to the compromise that saved the institution of the Senate. This has been covered all over the blogosphere, but I found the following email of particular interest:
RADICAL REPUBLICANS AND RIGHT-WING ACTIVISTS WERE TRIGGER-HAPPY FOR AN EXERCISE OF THE NUCLEAR OPTION, HAVE SAID COMPROMISE IS UNACCEPTABLERadical Republicans and right-wing activists have repeatedly stressed their all-or-nothing position on the nuclear option. They find compromise unacceptable. After the defection of seven moderate Republican Senators from the pro-nuclear position of Senate Republican leadership, radical activists express their disappointment over failing to take the Senate nuclear.
Conservatives unhappy with the moderates’ deal because it is the same one offered by Senator Harry Reid, rejected by Senator Frist. Writing in the conservative National Review, Andrew McCarthy assessed the moderates’ deal: “Let’s say, instead, that they simply gave us the bottom line: (a) three of the president’s nominees get an up-or-down vote (i.e., exactly three of the pending seven left standing after the Democrats — in that spirit of compromise — whittled down from the original ten); (b) the Democrats remain free to filibuster (but only on the strict condition that, uh, well, that the Democrats feel like filibustering); and (c) the Republicans, on the brink of breaking four years of obstruction, decide instead to punt (and on the eve of a likely battle over a Supreme Court vacancy, no less). Sound familiar? Yes it does: It’s the deal that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid offered a week ago — and that was flatly rejected as paltry and unprincipled.” [National Review, 5/24/05 http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200505240945.asp]
Focus on the Family Chairman James Dobson calls compromise a “complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans, great victory for Senate Democrats. "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats. Only three of President Bush's nominees will be given the courtesy of an up-or-down vote, and it's business as usual for all the rest. The rules that blocked conservative nominees remain in effect, and nothing of significance has changed. Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Chief Justice William Rehnquist would never have served on the U. S. Supreme Court if this agreement had been in place during their confirmations. The unconstitutional filibuster survives in the arsenal of Senate liberals. [U.S. Newswire, 5/23/05 http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.html/642140.html]
Disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment: Dobson goes on: "We are grateful to Majority Leader Frist for courageously fighting to defend the vital principle of basic fairness. That principle has now gone down to defeat. We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust." [U.S. Newswire, 5/23/05 http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.html/642140.html]
Former Republican presidential candidate, Gary Bauer, calls compromise a “travesty.” "Under this agreement it is now more likely that radical social change will continue to be forced on the American people by liberal courts committed to same sex marriage, abortion on demand and hostility to religious expression. The Republicans who lent their names to this travesty have undercut their President as well as millions of their most loyal voters. Shame on them all." [U.S. Newswire, 5/23/05 http://press.arrivenet.com/pol/article.html/642143.html]
Moderate Republicans have thrown victory overboard. Paul Weyrich, veteran conservative organizer, says of the compromise," Once again, moderate Republicans have taken the victory and thrown it overboard." [New York Times, 5/24/05 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24reax.html]
A big defeat for the Republicans, Democrats win even though they put a few judges up for confirmation. “Conservatives are going to be outraged over it," said Paul Weyrich, a veteran social conservative organizer and founder of the Free Congress Foundation. "And what do they get for it? This is about the Supreme Court, and the filibuster is still intact for the Supreme Court. This is a big defeat for the Republicans. The Democrats win even though they have got to put a few judges up for confirmation." [New York Times, 5/24/05 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24reax.html]
Moderate Republicans didn’t have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority. The Rev. Louis P. Sheldon, chairman and founder of the Traditional Values Coalition: said he was sitting with several conservative senators and a dozen Republican House members at the Capitol Hill Club when they learned of the agreement. "I tell you, you would have thought that the World Series had been forfeited for some dumb reason," Sheldon said. "They slapped their hands against their heads and cried out. They couldn't believe that this was the agreement." . . . . . Of the seven Republicans who signed the compromise agreement, Sheldon said: "They didn't have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority." [L.A. Times 5/24/05 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-react24may24,0,69327.story?coll=la-home-headlines]Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, says it’s not over. "I think we are going to be back here down the road," he said. [New York Times, 5/24/04 http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/24/politics/24reax.html]
Iowa Right to Life Committee president, Kim Lehman calls compromise “absurd,” an “abandonment.” In an interview, Lehman called the proposed compromise "absolutely absurd" and said it amounted to "abandonment" of the GOP. "The grassroots worked very hard to elect this Republican Senate. It's not an accident that we have the majority, and they've squandered it," she said. "When on earth did they decide to compromise the Constitution?" [CNN, Morning Grind 5/24/05]
Washington Times announces: “7 Republicans abandon GOP on filibuster. “The deal didn't satisfy Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has maintained that the Constitution requires up-or-down votes on all judicial nominees. ‘The agreement announced tonight falls short of that principle,’ the Tennessee Republican said on the Senate floor. ‘It falls short. It has some good news, and it has some disappointing news.’ “ [Washington Times, 5/24/05 http://washingtontimes.com/national/20050524-122305-7180r.htm]
Right-wing activists warn compromisers about their chances in the Iowa caucuses. President of Iowa Christian Coalition Steve Scheffler, president of the Christian Coalition of Iowa, said '08 caucus-goers have a long memory and little patience for "Republicans who oppose George Bush's judges." "We'll educate people in the caucuses, and this is not going to do them a lot of good in terms of their presidential aspirations," Scheffler told the Grind. "If they think people who attend caucus are going to forget about this, they're sadly mistaken." [CNN, Morning Grind, 5/24/05]
Nothing else comes close short of nuclear war – activists vow to fight on. The Iowa Family Policy Center President Chuck Hurley said the issue won't go away. "It's the biggest battle, nothing else comes close, short of nuclear war," he told the Grind. "It's the biggest job the president has, and it's the biggest test a candidate faces." [CNN, Morning Grind, 5/24/05]
REPUBLICAN SENATORS HAD SAID THEY WERE UNWILLING TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT
Senator Frist compared Democratic efforts to prevent the nomination of out of the mainstream judges to an assassination. Frist: “Mr. President, The – In response, the Paez nomination – we’ll come back and discuss it further, and actually I’d like to come back to the floor and discuss it, and it really brings to I believe a point what is – the issue. And the issue is that we have leadership-led partisan filibusters that have obstructed not one nominee but two, three, four five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten in a routine way. The issue is not cloture votes per se. It’s the partisan leadership-led use of cloture vote to kill, to defeat, to assassinate these nominees.” [Senate Floor, 5/18/05]Senator Frist says it’s the Constitution or the filibuster: “My goal is to have up or down votes, fair up or down votes, and it's based on principle, it's based on the Constitution," Frist said in a rare news conference Tuesday on the Senate floor. "One, at the end of the day, will be left standing. Either the Constitution... or the filibuster." [Gannett News Service, 4/27/05]
Frist says votes must go forward without the procedural gimmick of the filibuster. “Republicans believe in the regular order of fair up-and-down votes and letting the Senate decide yes or no on judicial confirmations free from procedural gimmicks like the filibuster,”
Frist: “It’s hard to compromise to the extent that people don’t get an up-or-down vote.” [Roll Call 5/11/05 Subscription Required]
Senator McConnell says compromise on judges is equivalent to a “random slaying.” McConnell: “any suggested agreement by the other side involves a kind of random slaying of good people.” [New York Times, 5/11/05 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30A16F638540C728DDDAC0894DD404482]
McConnell says Republicans have the votes to go nuclear. “It has been my prediction that we will have the votes if this step is taken,” McConnell said. [Roll Call 5/11/05 Subscription Required]
Senator George Allen urges action: "I've been advocating for months that we should move on this." [LA Times 5/11/05]
Senator Hutchinson is ready to exercise the nuclear option. Kay Bailey Hutchison, supports going nuclear in the Senate by saying, “We need to move on with the confirmations.” [CQ Today, 5/3/05 Subscription Required]
Senator Santorum says the time has come: “The time has come for the Senate to reestablish that tradition, to end these destructive judicial filibusters and to give all judicial nominees the up-or-down vote they deserve.” [Washington Post, 4/17/05 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A57780-2005Apr15.html]
Santorum: "My motivation is to affirm the constitutional duty of all Senators to give advice and consent on the President's judicial nominations. That includes a vigorous...up or down vote" [Philadelphia Inquirer, 4/22]
Senator John Cornyn says the filibuster must end: “Fundamentally, what we have is a partisan minority blocking a bipartisan majority from being able to act on the Senate floor. And this is something that we think needs to come to an end.” [CNN, 5/9/05]
Cornyn Said Frist Is Going Ahead With Nuclear Option. “Senator John Cornyn, a Republican member of the Judiciary Committee, tells us his party has the 51 votes necessary to implement the rule change and that Mr. Frist is getting ready to do just that.” [Wall Street Journal, Editorial, 2/1/05]Senator Cornyn’s narrow parameters for a no-compromise compromise: won’t accept any proposal where some nominees get votes, others do not. “Well, I certainly couldn't support any proposal which suggests that some of the president's nominees get an up-or-down vote and others be thrown overboard, and with no promise of how a prospective Supreme Court nominee might be treated, whether they would be filibustered or not. We need a permanent solution to this problem, and I believe it should be along the lines that I've suggested: that all presidents' -- each president's nominees would be treated exactly the same and not dependent on who happens to take up the decision to block, in a partisan fashion, a bipartisan majority from being able to cast an up-or-down vote.”
[News Conference, 5/9/05]RIGHT-WING PUNDITS AND ACTIVISTS HAD WARNED SENATORS AGAINST COMPROMISE
Conservative pundit Bob Novak says compromise on judges is, “like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber.”
In response to a question from Al Hunt: “Bob, why would Senator Frist refuse an offer [by Reid] to break the deadlock?”
Novak responded: “Because the whole system is that you're not going to have -- like going to a concentration camp and picking out which people go to the death chamber. You're not going to let the Democrats do that, say we're going to -- we're going to confirm this person, we're not going to confirm the other person. They're going to -- they're going to say that this is not the way we're going to do it. They've had all kinds of different offers of that kind.” [CNN's The Capital Gang, 5/14/05]
Dr. Dobson says compromise would be an end run, and a betrayal. "If this is true," Dr. Dobson said in an interview Tuesday, "it will represent an end run around the majority leader and will quite frankly be seen as a betrayal of the millions of people who put George Bush and the Republicans in office." [New York Times 5/11/05 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30A16F638540C728DDDAC0894DD404482]Frist goaded into action by disgraced former staffer who says delay would be “intolerable.” Manuel Miranda, a former nominations counsel for Senator Frist who was forced to resign from the majority leader's office after leaking strategy memos from activist groups to Senate Democrats on which nominations to filibuster. Winning the fight over judges is "vitally important for his political future," says Miranda. "But even if he were not to run for president it's important for his legacy. He knows he will not be remembered for the class‑action bill or the healthy forest initiative." [Christian Science Monitor 5/11/05 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0511/p01s02-uspo.htm]
“It must happen next week,” Manuel Miranda, chairman of the National Coalition to End the Judicial Filibuster, said during last week’s recess. “It would be considered intolerable to delay any further than next week. … Were it to be delayed beyond the next week, the Senate GOP should expect tens of thousands of angry phone calls and faxes to tie up their lines.” [Roll Call 5/12/05 Subscription Required]
Right-wing groups think it’s time to cash in, warning Republicans to vote for the nuclear option. On one side are conservative leaders who, after helping Republicans gain control of the White House and Congress, want results. If the Senate GOP leadership accepts anything less than a vote on each of Bush's nominees, ''I think people will be extremely upset,'' said Wendy Long of the Judicial Confirmation Network. [AP, 5/17/05 http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/11664804.htm]
GOP won’t let any nominations fail. On the notion that GOP leaders might allow some nominations to fail without a vote, she said flatly, ''They won't.'' [AP, 5/17/05 http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/11664804.htm]
Posted at 03:28 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
The Revitalized Democratic Party
Posted by Bob BrighamFor the last two weeks, I've been blessed with a front-row seat to the filibuster fight. It has been a remarkable experience and as Swing State Project pivots back to focusing on 2006 races, I will miss the urgency of the battle. Make no mistake, this was a battle royale and I believe it will be remembered as a turning point in the transformation of the Democratic Party.
My first observation is that the Democrats didn't roll over and die. The Democratic Leadership Council has so thoroughly wrecked the Democratic Party that I believe it is important to emphasize this. On too many battles since the DLC bought the party, Democrats have feared to engage in political battle. Much to my surprise, under Senator Harry Reid's leadership, Democrats are willing to stand up fight.
The Democratic Party still has a long way to go in the quest to remedy the harm of the DLC. The most important part of the battle to retake our party is giving Senator Joe Lieberman a giant shitburger of a primary challenge. As far as I'm concerned, the junior Senator from Connecticut is a complete piece of crap that is only allowed in the Democratic caucus because Harry Reid is a gentleman. To be perfectly honest, I don't even care if we win. But we need to send a powerful signal that the appeasement days are over. Blanketing Connecticut with the nastiest ads ever created will go a long way towards forging a respect for solidarity in the Democratic Party.
Looking back over the battle for the filibuster, I think Democrats biggest blow came on March 15 when Harry Reid held a capitol steps rally to demonstrate unity -- Lieberman's absence was "conspicuous" (as the press noted). That is the great thing about brinkmanship, it clearly defines who is on which team. Lieberman hurt Democrats through the entire battle and the Democratic Leadership Council was worthless in the fight.
Those of you who think Democrats could have done better are 100% justified in blaming Joe Lieberman. Lieberman's refusal to work with Democrats cost us from the start, it hurt our posture, it compromised our negotiating position, and it personally pissed me off.
I don't buy in to unilateral disarmament and I certainly don't buy in to the notion that you don't go negative in primary elections. The primaries are where we set our Democratic Party's course and if a credible candidate runs against Joe Lieberman, I am confident that the netroots will unleash a wrath of epic proportions. Sure Lieberman will probably win, but he needs to be shunned by Democrats. When he goes home to Connecticut, I want people to lower their eyes as he walks down the street...too embarrassed to make eye contact.
The act of shunning has a proud tradition in political action and needs to be utilized against Lieberman. For Democratic political operatives, there is no honor in working for Lieberman or the DLC. While people have ended up in the employment of both for a variety of reasons, now is the time to leave. Twenty years down the road, if a resume crosses my desk from somebody who worked for Lieberman after today, that person will be rejected without any further consideration. If you want to work in Democratic politics, you do not want Lieberman or the DLC on your resume.
I am one-hundred fucking percent serious about this. From now on, there are no excuses.
But back to the good stuff. In spite of Joe Lieberman, the Democratic Party showed a new spirit these last couple of weeks. Some of it was the momentum from a united caucus blocking Social Security privatization, but there was something else that I noticed in this fight: teamwork.
Except for the Lieberman and the dipshits at the DLC, the left worked together to save the filibuster. Bill Frist's abuse of power forced institutional and structural changes in Democrats' coordination, command and control, messsage, and distribution that were fast-tracked to deal with Dobson's threat against the senate.
Comparing my experiences early in the year fighting for Social Security with the last two weeks, I noticed a dramatic escalation in modernized campaigning by Democrats.
Yes, there is a long way to go, but the filibuster fight was a great fire-drill for Democrats. We learned a great deal at an accelerated rate, knowledge that will be priceless in future policy and election battles.
In short, Reid kicks ass, Lieberman sucks ass, and the revitalized donkey is one ass we can be proud of.
UPDATE: (Bob) - You can find more out more about a potential primary campaign against Lieberman here and here.
Posted at 11:36 AM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Activism, Connecticut, Democrats, Nuclear Option | Technorati
Nuclear Fallout: More From the Field
Posted by Tim TagarisWorking for Change: (David Sirota) Good news on the filibuster issue being resolved, at least for now. Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Democratic Caucus really managed to make the Republican leadership look like the extremist thugs they are.
Working for Change: (David Sirota Part II) First and foremost - the radical right is freaking out. That means that, policy-wise, we've not only done something right by defeating the "nuclear" option, but we've opened up a divide between the lunatic fringe wing of the GOP, and the (albeit dying and tiny) mainstream wing.
Senator Russ Feingold: This is not a good deal for the U.S. Senate or for the American people. Democrats should have stood together firmly against the bullying tactics of the Republican leadership abusing their power as they control both houses of Congress and the White House.
MyDD: (Chris Bowers Part II) The Nuclear Option debacle is over, and I for one am glad. As much as it helped shed sunlight on the extremist, theocon wing of the Republican Party, it also dragged on for two months and sucked as much air out of the news and the blogosphere as I have seen any issue accomplish since the election.
Posted at 12:21 AM in Nuclear Option | Comments (1) | Technorati
Monday, May 23, 2005
Driving the Wedge
Posted by DavidNYCRegardless of what you think of the filibuster deal we cut tonight - and I can't say I'm a big fan of it - the outrage in wingnuttia is truly berserk. Our friends at Crooks & Liars have compiled an awesome assemblage of conservative froth and venom. The fact is, no matter how grumpy some of us on the left might be right now, Bill Frist drove an enormous wedge between the Republican leadership in Washington and the right-wing base tonight. It's our job to hammer that wedge even further.
Even Darth Dobson is spluttering with rage and already making threats:
This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats....
We share the disappointment, outrage and sense of abandonment felt by millions of conservative Americans who helped put Republicans in power last November. I am certain that these voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust.
Go follow that Crooks & Liars link for more winger vein-popping. Keep reminding the right of how their leadership "betrayed" them today and their blood will keep boiling. As I say, this is going to be a good wedge issue for the foreseeable future, especially if the Dems do find a way to filibuster any future nominees.
Posted at 11:07 PM in Nuclear Option | Comments (2) | Technorati
Nuclear Fallout: Keeping Score at Home
Posted by Tim TagarisKos: Remember, Republicans have a 10-seat majority in the Senate. Given the alternative -- a Dobson controlled Supreme Court nominee -- this is a huge victory.
Atrios: (Avendon) I don't know about you, but I don't like it.
MyDD: (Chris Bowers) My first reaction is that this is a defeat, since we would only accept a deal unless we didn't have the votes. Then again, the filibuster is saved and Frist might be finished, so it is also a victory
BOP News: (Stirling Newberry) They got it. Make no mistake, this deal is an unmitigated disaster for Democracy, for the Democratic Senate caucus, for ordinary Democrats, for all Americans.
Talk Left: - We don't have a "Republic" tonight. We have a total Republican regime. Welcome to the Theocracy.
AmericaBlog: (From Joe) - But, in the long run, this forces the White House to think differently about the Supreme Court. That seemed to be the message from the gang of 14, most notably Lindsay Graham who said as much during the press conference. Still processing...but those are initial thoughts.
Steve Gillard: This is a major defeat for the theocrats. This is what happens when amateurs play at politics. Dobson was under the delusion that he could control the Senate with his money and Bill Frist's dick in his pocket. This didn't work.
Swing State Project: (Tim) We just spent the last several months repeating that Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown were so far out of the mainstream that we were willing to walk up to the edge of nuclear catastrophe in the Senate. If these two do not fall into the "extraordinary circumstances" category, how can we convince the American people that any nominee to the Supreme Court is so beyond the pale that we are forced to filibuster?
Swing State Project: (David) Sounds like we made a deal to preserve a filibuster we'll never be able to use.
The Next Hurrah: (DHinMI) The presser is still going on, and people on both ends of the political spectrum are calling this a defeat. But only one side of the political spectrum calling this a defeat is wrong: the left side is wrong. This is a victory for Harry Reid and the Democratic caucus in the Senate, and it's a big loss for the Republicans, the White House, and especially Bill Frist.
The Next Hurrah: (Emptywheel) I don't know--and I don't think anyone knows--whether this compromise is a good or bad thing. Hell, we don't even know what the result of Owen's and Brown's votes will be; if some Republicans have been convinced to oppose them, then it will feel more like a win than it does today. But I think this compromise can be turned into a win, by pushing the moderate 14 to oppose Bolton's nomination on the terms it is being advanced perhaps as early as Wednesday.
Crooks & Liars: No nuclear option. Dobson, Robertson, Frist and the Religious Right have lost.
If you see any more I should add, from the left, or if you have a blog and want yours added, let me know.
Posted at 09:48 PM in Nuclear Option | Comments (3) | Technorati
Nuclear Fallout: Harry Reid Video
Posted by Tim TagarisLink from DemBloggers.
Use this as a temporary open thread. Sign up for an account to comment on Swing State Project here.
Posted at 09:18 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
Reid Claims Victory!
Posted by Bob BrighamReid's Statement:
There is good news for every American in this agreement. The so-called "nuclear option" is off the table. This is a significant victory for our country, for democracy, and for all Americans. Checks and balances in our government have been preserved.The integrity of future Supreme Courts has been protected from the undue influences of a vocal, radical faction of the right that is completely out of step with mainstream America. That was the intent of the Republican "nuclear option" from the beginning. Tonight, the Senate has worked its will on behalf of reason, responsibility and the greater good.
We have sent President George Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and the radical arm of the Republican base an undeniable message: Abuse of power will not be tolerated, and attempts to trample the Constitution and grab absolute control are over. We are a separate and equal branch of government. That is our founding fathers¹ vision, and one we hold dear.
I offered Senator Frist several options similar to this compromise, and while he was not able to agree, I am pleased that some responsible Republicans and my colleagues were able to put aside there differences and work from the center. I do not support several of the judges that have been agreed to because their views and records display judicial activism that jeopardize individual rights and freedoms. But other troublesome nominees have been turned down. And, most importantly, the U.S. Senate retains the checks and balances to ensure all voices are heard in our democracy and the Supreme Court make-up cannot be decided by a simple majority.
I am grateful to my colleagues who brokered this deal. Now, we can move beyond this time-consuming process that has deteriorated the comity of this great institution. I am hopeful that we can quickly turn to work on the people's business. We need to ensure our troops have the resources they need to fight in Iraq and that Americans are free from terrorism. We need to protect retiree's pensions and long-term security. We need to expand health care opportunities for all families. We need to address rising gasoline prices and energy independence. And we need to restore fiscal responsibility and rebuild our economy so that it lifts all American workers. That is our reform agenda, the people's reform agenda. Together, we can get the job done.
Good news for America, even Senate Republicans admitted the GOP leadership under Frist and DeLay is nuts. With Senate Republicans leading the charge, the 2006 backlash begins today!
UPDATE (Bob): HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
Posted at 08:31 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - House, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option | Technorati
Nuclear Option: CNN Reports Deal Reached
Posted by Tim TagarisFrom CNN's breaking news alert on the top of it's webstite.
A bipartisan group of senators has reached a deal to avert a showdown over President Bush's judicial nominees, congressional sources tell CNN. Details soon.UPDATE 1 - 7:37 P.M. (Tim) - Drudge Reports (Take it for what it's worth):
"We've got a deal," Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson told reporters. Senators plan to announce details at a news conference shortly...
UPDATE - 2 7:46 P.M. (Bob): From MSNBC:
Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush’s future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in “extraordinary circumstances.”For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.
If these are the terms, then Democrats won everything. Democrats have approved 95% of Bush's nominees, only using the filibuster for "extraordinary circumstances" with the most extremist picks. With the GOP tanking in the polls, it looks like they were the first to blink. If this is true, then the Democrats won, Democrats saved the Senate!
UPDATE 3 (Tim) - CSPAN3 is carrying the conference, I just tuned in. You can watch at CSPAN.org.
UPDATE 4 (Bob): The few remaining moderates in the Republican Party have just admitted that Bush and Frist and DeLay are batshit crazy. People who vote for Republicans in 2006 are voting to continue the reign of those who pushed this outrageous abuse of power.
UPDATE 5 (Bob): Kos;
It's not a good day to be Bill Frist. He looks weak, unable to control his own caucus. His winger friends go ballistic. They get some judges, sure, but ultimately, we can filibuster Bush's next Supreme Court nominee unless he picks a moderate.The Dobson power grab may have failed a day early.
UPDATE 6 (Bob): Reid claims victory: "Checks and Balances have been protected."
UPDATE 7 (Bob): Crooks and Liars:
VICTORY!
No nuclear option. Dobson, Robertson, Frist and the Religious Right have lost.
UPDATE 8 (Bob): While Democrats won, there is talk that we would could have done better if Reid wouldn't have been undermined by the chickenshit DLCers.
UPDATE 9 (Bob): More from Kos:
On top of everything, Frist looks weak. He's failed his crazies. He's finished.
Posted at 07:33 PM in Nuclear Option | Comments (2) | Technorati
Reid to Republicans: Stand Down
Posted by Bob BrighamRoll Call (via Political Wire):
In an unusual move, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) will appear tonight in a 90-second television ad calling on Republicans to stand down on their threat to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominees.
Reid will address the nation in a half an hour. For the sake of the Senate, let's hope Reid is successful in convincing the Republicans to stop this abuse of power.
Posted at 07:25 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
Dr. Action on GOP Abuse of Power
Posted by Bob BrighamAccording to Chris Bowers, Swing State Project's DavidNYC is Dr. Action.
Join Dr. Action and tell everyone you know about the Republican's Abuse of Power.
UPDATE: (Bob): Dr. Action's All Hands on Deck post made MSNBC today -- check out Crooks and Liars for the video. Way to go, David Dr. Action!
Posted at 06:38 PM in Activism, Nuclear Option, Site News | Technorati
Nuclear Option: Showdown at High Noon Tomorrow
Posted by Tim TagarisBill Frist just had the Sargeant at Arms instruct all Senators to the floor to make one simple announcement. He will call for a cloture vote on Priscilla Owen tomorrow at high noon in the well of the United States Senate.
He couldn't have picked a better time.
Posted at 06:05 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
Nuclear Option: Biden Floor Speech
Posted by Tim TagarisAs you know, Swing State Project will be following the nuclear option around the clock leading up to, and continuing through, the nuclear fallout resulting from the GOP abuse of power. As a service to SSP readers, we are getting in touch with Senate staffs in order to post their remarks in full. If you are a Senate staffer, please send along full-text transcripts of prepared remarks so we can post them in full here. Email addresses can be found on the right side of this page.
Senator Joe Biden's office was the first to respond, and they deserve praise for reaching out in this manner. Snip from his remarks:
Watch what happens, watch what happens when the Majority Leader stands up and says to the Vice President, if we go forward with this, and he calls the question. And one of us, I expect our leader on the Democratic side, will stand up and say, "parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is this parliamentary appropriate -- parliamentarily appropriate?" and in every other case that I've been here in 32 years, the presiding officer leans down to the parliamentarian and says, "what's the rule, Mr. Parliamentarian?" the parliamentarian turns and tells him. Hold your breath, parliamentarian.He's not going to look to you because he knows what you would say. He would say, this is not parliamentarily appropriate. You cannot change the Senate rules by a pure majority vote.
If any of you think I'm exaggerating, watch on television. Watch when this happens. And watch the vice president ignore -- he's not required to look to an unelected officer. But that has been the practice for 218 years. He will not look down and say, "what is the ruling?"
Full-text of remarks in the extended entry.
Biden Floor Statement on the "Nuclear Option"
May 23, 2005
Mr. BIDEN: Mr. President, my friends and colleagues, I've not been here as long as Senator Byrd, and no one fully understands the Senate as well as Senator Byrd, but I've been here for over three decades.
I think this is the single-most significant vote any one of us will cast in my 32 years in the Senate, and I suspect the senator would agree with that.
And we should make no mistake. This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab by the majority party propelled by its extreme right and designed to change the reading of the Constitution, particularly as it relates to individual rights and property rights. It's nothing more or nothing less.
And let me take a few minutes to explain that. Folks who want to see this change want to eliminate one of the procedural mechanisms designed for the express purpose of guaranteeing individual rights and they also, as a consequence, would undermine the protections of the minority point of view in the heat of majority excess.
We've been through these periods before in American history, but never to the best of my knowledge has any party been so bold as to fundamentally attempt to change the structure of this body.
Why else would the majority party attempt one of the most fundamental changes in the 216-year history of this Senate on the grounds that they are being denied seven of 218 federal judges, three of whom have stepped down?
What shortsightedness and what a price history will exact on those who support this radical move. Mr. President, I think it's important we state frankly, if for no other reason than the historical record, why this is being done.
The extreme right of the Republican party is attempting to hijack the federal courts by emasculating the court's independence and changing one of the unique foundations of the united states senate. That is, the requirement that the protection of the right of individual senators to guarantee the independence of the federal judiciary. This is being done in the name of fairness?
But, quite frankly, it's the ultimate act of unfairness to alter the unique responsibility of the United States Senate and to do so by breaking the very rules of the united states senate. Mark my words, what's at stake here is not the politics of 2005 but the federal judiciary and the united states senate of the year 2025.
This is the single-most significant vote, as I said earlier, that I will have cast in my 32 years in the senate. The extreme Republican right has made Justice Ginsburg's "Constitution in Exile," the name of a work he wrote, the framework of that "Constitution in Exile" their top priority.
It is their purpose to reshape the federal courts so as to guarantee a reading of the Constitution consistent with Judge Ginsburg's radical views of the 5th Amendment's taking clause, the Non-delegation Doe Doctrine, the 11th amendment and the 10th amendment.
I suspect some listening to me and some in the press will think I'm exaggerating. I would respectfully suggest they read Justice Ginsburg's work, "Constitution in Exile." Read it. Read it and understand what is at work here.
As I said, if you doubt what I'm saying, then I suggest you ask yourself the rhetorical question, "why for the first time since 1789 is the Republican-controlled Senate attempting to change the rule of unlimited debate, as it relates to federal----eliminate it as it relates to federal judges for the circuit court or supreme court?"
If you doubt what I say, please read what Justice Ginsburg has written.
Greve says "what is really needed here is a fundamental, intellectual assault on the entire new deal edifice. We want to withdraw judicial support for the entire modern welfare state." End of quote.
Read: social security, workmans comp. National labor root relations board. Read. F.D.A., read what all the byproduct of that shift in Constitutional authority meant.
If you want to hear more of what I'm -- I characterize as radical view -- and maybe it is unfair to say "radical." A fundamental view and what at least must be characterized as a stark departure from current Constitutional jurisprudence, then click onto American Enterprise Institute's web site. Read what they say.
Read what the purpose is. It's not about seeking a conservative court or placing conservative justices on the bench. The courts are already conservative. Seven of the nine Supreme Court Justices appointed by republican presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II -- seven of nine. 10 of 13 federal circuit court of appeals dominated by Republican appointees appointed by presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II. 58% of the circuit court judges appointed by either presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II.
No, my friends and colleagues, this is not about building a conservative court. We already have a conservative court. This is about guaranteeing a Supreme Court made up of men and women like those who sat on the court in 1910 and 1920.
Those who believe shall as Justice Rogers does of California, that the Constitution has been in exile, has been in exile since the New Deal.
My friends and colleagues, the nuclear option is not an isolated instance. It is part of a broader plan to pack the court with fundamentalist judges and to cower existing conservative judges to tow the extreme party line. You all heard what Tom DeLay said after the federal courts refused to bend to the whip of the radical right in the Schiavo case.
DeLay declared, and I quote, "the time will come for men responsible for this to answer for their behavior" -- end of quote.
Even current conservative Supreme Court justices are looking over their shoulder with one extremist recalling the despicable slogan of Josef Stalin -- and I am not making this up -- in reference to a Republican appointee, Reagan Republican appointee, Justice Kennedy, when he said, "no man, no problem. Absent his presence, we have no problem."
Let me remind you, as I said, Justice Kennedy was appointed by president Reagan. Have they never heard of the independence of the judiciary?
As a fundamental part of our Constitutional system of checks and balances, as there is today literally the envy of the world, the envy of the entire world, and the fear of the extremist part of the world, an independent judiciary is their greatest fear.
Why are radicals focusing on the court? Well, first of all, it's their time to be in absolute political control because it's there. It's like why did Willie Sutton rob banks? He said because that's where the money is. Why try it now, for the first time in history, to eliminate extended debate?
Well, because they control every lever of the federal government. That's the very reason why we have the rule. So when one party, when one interest controls all levers of government, one man or one woman can stand on the floor of the Senate and resist, if need be, the passions of the moment.
But there's a second reason why they're focusing on the courts and that is because they've been unable to get their agenda passed through the legislative body. Think about it. All the talk about how they represent -- represent the majority of the American people. None of their agenda has passed as is it relates to the 5th Amendment, as it relates to zoning laws, as it relates to the ability of federal agencies like the food and drug administration, the E.P.A. to do their job.
Read what they write when they write about the nondelegation doctrine. That simply means we in the Congress, as they read the Constitution, cannot delegate to the E.P.A. the authority to set limits on how many carcinogens, how much of a percentage of carcinogens can be admitted into the air or admitted into the water.
They'd insist that we, the Senate, have to vote on every one of those rules, that we, the Senate and the House, with the ability of the president to veto works have to vote on any and all drugs that are approved or not approved.
You think I'm exaggerating this. Look at these web sites. These aren’t a bunch of wackos. These are a bunch of very bright, very smart, very well-educated intellectuals who see these federal restraints as a restraint upon competition, a restraint upon growth, a restraint upon the powerful.
The American people see what's going on. They're too smart and they're too practical. They may not know the meaning of the nondelegation doctrine. They may not know the clause of the 5th Amendment relating to property. They may not know the meaning of the 10th and 11th Amendment as interpreted by Mr. Ginsburg and others. But they know that the strength of our country lies in the common sense and our common pragmatism which is antithetical to the poisons of the extremes on either side.
The American people will soon learn that Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the nominees that we are not allowing to be passed, one of the ostensible reasons for this nuclear option being employed has decried the supreme court's -- quote -- "socialist revolution of 1930."
Read what they say. Read what they mean. The very year that a 5-4 court upheld the Constitutional -- the Constitutionality of Social Security against a strong challenge. 1937, Social Security almost failed by one vote. It was challenged in the supreme court as being confiscatory.
People argued then that a government has no right to demand that everyone pay into the system, no right to demand that every employer pay into the system. Some of you may agree with that. It's a legitimate argument. But one rejected by the supreme court in 1937 that Janice Rogers Brown refers to as the "socialist revolution" of 1937.
If it hadn't been for some of the things they've already done, no one would believe anything I'm saying here. These guys mean what they say. And the American people are going to soon learn that one of the leaders of the "Constitution in Exile" school, the group that wants to reinstate the Constitution as it existed in 1920, said that another -- said of another filibustered judge, William Pryor, that -- quote -- "Pryor is the key to this puzzle. There's nobody like him. I think he's sensational. He gets almost all of it." That's the reason why I oppose him. He gets all of it.
And you're about to get all of it if they prevail. We'll not have to debate about Social Security on this floor. So the radical right makes its power play now and they control all centers of political power, however temporary. The radicals push through the nuclear option and then pack the courts with unimpeded judges who by -- unimpeded judges who by current estimations will serve an average of 25 years.
The right focused on packing the courts because their agenda is so radical that they're unwilling to come directly to you, the American people, and tell you what they intend. Without the filibuster, President Bush will send over more and more judges of this nature but perhaps three or four supreme court nominations then there will be nothing, nothing that any moderate Republican friends and I will be able to do about it.
Judges who will influence the rights of average Americans, the ability to sue your H.M.O. that denies you your rights, the ability to keep strip clubs out of your neighborhood because they un -- make zoning laws unconstitutional without you paying to keep the person from not building. The ability to protect the land your kids play on, the water they drink, the air they breathe, and the privacy of your family in your own home.
Remember, many of my colleagues here say there is no such thing as a right to privacy in any iteration under the Constitution of the United States of America. Fortunately, we've had a majority of judges who's disagreed with that over the past 70 years. But hang on, folks.
The fight over judges at bottom is not about abortion and a God. It's about giving greater power to the already powerful. The fight is about maintaining our civil rights protections, about workplace safety and worker protections, about effective oversight of financial markets and protecting against insider trading. It's about Social Security.
What is really at stake in this debate point blank is the shape of our Constitutional system for the next generation. And the nuclear option is a two-fer.
It excises independence from our courts into the -- and at the same time emasculates the Senate. Put simple, the nuclear option would transform the senate from the so-called "cooling saucer" our Founding Fathers talked about to cool the passions of the day to a pure majoritarian body, like a parliament.
We've heard a lot in recent weeks about the rights of the majority and of obstructionism. But the Senate is not meant to be a place of pure majoritarianism. Is majority rule really what you want?
Do my Republican colleagues really want majority rule in this Senate?
Well, let me remind you, 44 of us Democrats represent 161 million people. 161 million Americans voted for these 44 Democrats. Do you know how many Americans voted for the 55 of you? 131 million. If this were about pure majorities, my party represents more people in America than the Republican party does.
But that's not what it's about. Wyoming, the home state of the Vice President of this body, gets one senator for every 246,000 citizens. California gets one senator, one senator for 17 million Americans.
More Americans voted for Vice President Gore than they did Bush by majoritarian logic, Gore won the election. The Republicans control the Senate and they've decided that they're going to change the rule. At its core, it is filibuster's not -- the filibuster's not about stopping a nominee or a bill.
It's about compromise and moderation. That's why the Founders put unlimited debate in. When you have to -- and I have never conducted a filibuster. But if I did, the purpose would be you have to deal with me as one senator. It doesn't mean I get my way. It means you may have to compromise. You may have to see my side of the argument. That's what it's about.
Engendering compromise and moderation. Ladies and gentlemen, the nuclear option extinguishes the power of independence and moderates in this senate. That's it. They're done. Moderates are important only if you need to get 60 votes to satisfy cloture. They are much less important if you need only 50 votes. I understand the frustration of my Republican colleagues. I've been here 32 years. Most of the time in the majority.
And whenever you're in the majority, it's frustrating to see the other side block a bill or a nominee you support. I've walked in your shoes. And I get it. I get it so much that what brought me to the United States Senate was the fight for civil rights.
My state, to its great shame, was segregated by law, was a slave state. I came here to fight it. But even I understood, with all the passion I felt as a 29-year-old kid running for the senate, the purpose -- the purpose -- of extended debate, getting rid of the filibuster has long-term consequences.
There's one thing I've learned in my years here, once you change the rules and surrender the senate's institutional power, you never get it back. And we're about to break the rules to change the rules. I don't want to hear about fair play from my friends. Under our rules, you're required to get a two-thirds vote -- I mean, excuse me, 60 votes to change the rules.
Watch what happens, watch what happens when the Majority Leader stands up and says to the Vice President, if we go forward with this, and he calls the question. And one of us, I expect our leader on the Democratic side, will stand up and say, "parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President. Is this parliamentary appropriate -- parliamentarily appropriate?" and in every other case that I've been here in 32 years, the presiding officer leans down to the parliamentarian and says, "what's the rule, Mr. Parliamentarian?" the parliamentarian turns and tells him. Hold your breath, parliamentarian.
He's not going to look to you because he knows what you would say. He would say, this is not parliamentarily appropriate. You cannot change the Senate rules by a pure majority vote.
If any of you think I'm exaggerating, watch on television. Watch when this happens. And watch the vice president ignore -- he's not required to look to an unelected officer. But that has been the practice for 218 years. He will not look down and say, "what is the ruling?"
He will make the ruling, which is a lie. A lie about the rule. Isn't what really going on here, the majority doesn't want to hear what others have to say, even if it's the truth?
Senator Moynihan, my good friend who I served with for years, said "you're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts."
The nuclear option abandons America's sense of fair play. It's the one thing this country stands for. Not tilting the playing field on the side of those who control and own the field. I say to my friends on the Republican side, you may own the field right now but you won't own it forever. And I pray god when the Democrats take back control, we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing
But I'm afraid you will teach my new colleagues the wrong lessons. We're only temporary custodians of the Senate. But the Senate will go on. And I can see my time is up. Let me conclude by saying again, mark my words. History will judge this Republican majority harshly if it makes this catastrophic move.
I yield the floor.
Posted at 06:03 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
Voter Backlash Against GOP Abuse of Power
Posted by Bob BrighamYet another new poll and yet further evidence that voters are pissed off at the Republican abuse of power. This is going to have serious ramifications in 2006.
Posted at 05:37 PM in 2006 Elections, 2006 Elections - Senate, Nuclear Option, Republicans | Technorati
DSCC Email: Time is Running Out
Posted by Bob BrighamI just received the following email from the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee on the GOP Abuse of Power:
Time is running out. At any moment, Bill Frist could trigger the "nuclear option" and end the filibuster as we know it. This abuse of power is nothing less than a brazen attempt to change the rules so the Republicans can pack our federal courts with extremist right wing judges.There is only one way to stop this partisan power grab. We have to show Bill Frist and the Senate Republicans that the American people oppose them now and that we will remember these events on Election Day. That's why I'm asking you to join the DSCC in opposition to the nuclear option by signing our new petition today.
Click here to oppose the nuclear option!
This is the absolute last minute. At any moment, Bill Frist could put an end to 200 years of Senate tradition by asking Dick Cheney to make an unprecedented ruling that judicial filibusters are out of order.
The only way to stop this is to show Senate Republicans that when they abuse their power and change the rules, they do so despite having an overwhelming majority of Americans opposed to their actions. Make sure your voice is heard by joining the DSCC today.
Click here to oppose the nuclear option!
Acting immediately is even more important if you live in Maine, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, or Virginia or if you know someone who does. Senators from those states will prove to be the critical swing votes we will need to win this fight.
To save the filibuster and prevent a right wing takeover of our federal courts, we must act today. Please sign the DSCC's new petition before time runs out.
Sincerely,
Anne Lewis
I signed.
Posted at 05:15 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
Blogosphere Slumber Party Tonight
Posted by Bob BrighamOK everyone, here's the story: We're going all night tonight. If you live on the West Coast, your duty lasts until 3 AM. If you live on the East Coast, your shift begins at 5 AM (all times local).
From MSNBC:
WASHINGTON - Cots were brought into the Capitol Monday as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist scheduled an all-night session stretching into Tuesday to dramatize the debate over President Bush’s judicial nominees and the filibusters that Democrats have used to block votes on 10 of them.
UPDATE: Key links:
All Hands On Deck - Action Items
"Nuclear Option" Survival Guide - Netroots Tips
"Nuclear Option" Resource Center - (The Next Hurrah)
UPDATE: Tonight is the night, stop the Republican ABUSE OF POWER.
Swing State Project have have round-the-clock coverage.
Posted at 04:02 PM in Activism, Netroots, Nuclear Option | Technorati
"Nuclear Option" Citizen Filibusters
Posted by Bob BrighamMoveon PAC's Citizen Filibusters made DavidNYC's All Hands On Deck action post. I just finished registering for mine:
City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94103
Tuesday, 24 May 2005, 12:00 PM
See you there, if you aren't there, I expect to see photos of the Citizen Filibuster in your area.
Posted at 03:36 PM in Activism, California, Nuclear Option | Technorati
Nuclear Option: NE, PA, OH, VI Calls
Posted by Bob BrighamIf you live in Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Ohio, or Virginia -- pick up your phone right now and help save the Senate. Details after the jump...
From NHC1978 on Daily Kos:
Arlen Specter: (Pennsylvania)
DC Office:
202-224-4254Philadelphia Office:
215-597-7200Pittsburgh Office:
412-644-3400John Warner: (Virginia)
DC Office:
(202) 224-2023Richmond Office:
(804) 739-0247Norfolk Office:
(757) 441-3079Mike Dewine: (Ohio)
DC Office:
(202) 224-2315Cleveland office:
(216) 522-7272Columbus office:
(614) 469-5186Chuck Hagel: (Nebraska)
DC Office:
(202) 224-4224Omaha Office:
(402) 758-8981
Posted at 03:25 PM in 2006 Elections - Senate, Nebraska, Nuclear Option, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia | Technorati
Nuclear Option: Harry Reid Addresses the Nation
Posted by Bob BrighamFrom Kos:
Reid has bought a 90-second ad this evening to present the Democratic position to the American people. It will air tonight as follows:
WRC (DC) 7:58 P.M.
WJLA (DC) 7:57 P.M.
WTTG (C) 7:57 P.M.
CNN 8:00 P.M.
CNNHN 8:00 P.M.
FoxNews 7:50-7:55 P.M.Part of his message in the ad:
Unfortunately, some Senate Republicans are trying to give President Bush power no president has ever had -- the ability to personally hand out lifetime jobs to judges -- including the Supreme Court, without consensus from the other party. This abuse of power is not what our founders intended. It's wrong for one political party -- be it Republicans today or Democrats tomorrow -- to have total control over who sits on our high courts and rules on our most basic rights.
Indeed.
Posted at 03:22 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
All Hands on Deck!
Posted by DavidNYCThe battle to preserve the rights of minority political factions - and the public interests those factions represent - is about to be fully joined. Here are the simple steps you need to take to gear up for the fight to save the filibuster:
1) Sign up for text message alerts on your cell phone with People for the American Way. This way, you'll know instantly when we need to take action and what you need to do.2) Regionalization is becoming increasingly important - elected officials always respond more eagerly to their constituents, and good local media coverage is key. BlogPAC is helping to organize state-by-state efforts, so if you haven't yet signed up there, do so by clicking here. If you have a blog of your own, be sure to input that in the appropriate field. (Non-bloggers should sign up as well.)
3) MoveOn PAC is organizing citizen filibusters - along the lines of the tremendously successful Princeton filibuster - tomorrow at noon. Click on over to their site to find a location near you. If you go, be sure to take a digital camera or a camcorder and post pics or videos online when you get home. Thanks to inflation, pictures are worth even more than 1,000 words these days.
4) When things really, finally go down, everyone needs to be able to contact as many people as fast as possible. We need people to hear our unfiltered message from friends and family and co-workers and neighbors before they hear the sterile and misleading he-said/she-said version on the news. So people need to pull together email addresses for everyone they know before it happens so that our message can immediately spread virally.
We don't know exactly when Frist will try to go nuclear, but people need to plan to drop everything and get in front of a computer. The process of breaking the rules to end the filibuster won't take that much time. We need instant mobilization and widespread distribution. With everyone's help, we can win this in the Senate - and on the local level.
All hands on deck!
Posted at 02:44 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
Nuclear Option Resource Center
Posted by Bob BrighamOur friends at The Next Hurrah have the "Nuclear Option" Resource Center. In covering the Senate Scandal, blogs have breadth and depth!
Posted at 01:40 PM in Nuclear Option | Technorati
Nuclear Option: Houston Bar Grades Owen "Poor"
Posted by Tim TagarisHat tip to Suburban Guerilla.
Priscilla Owens was just rated “poor” by the Houston Bar Association by almost half of the respondents. She had the lowest rating on the Texas Supreme Court of any justice.
To be exact, 39.5% rated her "outstanding," 15.2% rated her "acceptable," and 45.3 rated her "poor."
The "guts" of the poll show an equally "poor" perception of Owen. Fourty-eight percent of respondents rate Owen as "poor" when it comes to being "impartial and open-minded with respect to determining the legal issues." Her rating among Texas Supreme Courts colleagues was the lowest among all justices on, being "attentive to the oral argument," "interact[ing] constructively with counsel during oral arguments," and her opinions "demonstrat[ing] a well-reasoned, clearly written disposition of the case based on proper of the law to the record.