The truth hurts

Lol, Byrd as a source of wisdom? At any rate, comparing someone to Hitler is quite extreme. The fact that you can make this analogy in a public forum is pretty strong evidence that we're not in Nazi Germany. I would expect an apology for such a brazen insult.

I highly doubt we're apologizing to the people we torture and kill. So, I doubt there will be any coming on this one.

Cycloptichorn

I believe the correct procedure in these sorts of cases is for Dick Cheney, in his role as president of the senate, to submit a motion of censure, along the lines of: "Be it RESOLVED that the Senate hereby declares Robert Byrd should just go **** himself."

This is just plain laughable. Senator Byrd, when he was the majority leader, used the "nuclear" option FOUR times to change senatorial rules. Do you thing he would describe his own actions in terms of Hitler? But then, this is just typical political BS. If the Dems do it, it must be for a good reason - if the Reps do it, it's because they're evil. Please.

I've seen this claim all over the web, but I haven't seen a single site that has backed up this contention with some facts. And when I saw Robert Novak make the same unsupported claim in one of his columns, I pretty much assumed that it was a bunch of crap. Do you have any links that can substantiate (as opposed to ones that merely repeat) this contention, Idaho?

Link

Idaho: thanks for the link, but it provides no support for the claim that Byrd, as majority leader, used this "nuclear option" four times. What I'm looking for is: (1) the dates on which this option was used by Byrd; (2) the background; and (3) the manner in which Byrd used the option. Since a lot of people are certain that Byrd used this option four times (not three, not five), it shouldn't be a problem identifying those four times and providing the details.

It's long, but here it is, the 4 times Senator Byrd used the nuclear option (changing Senate rules by procedural vote rather than ammending Senate rules). He also threatened use of this option on several occasions where the threat was enough to get what he wanted without actual use of the nuclear option. Harvard Link

I think we should discuss the nuclear option before condemning Byrd. From what I've read it's more far reaching than Byrds work in the past. Even moderate Repubs are alarmed.

Tomorrow, March 10th, the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider the nomination of mining and cattle industry lobbyist William Myers III for a lifetime appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals—the second highest court in the land. Myers is the first of 20 judicial nominees Bush has re-submitted in his second term. All 20 repeat nominees were rejected last term by Senate Democrats (as compared to the 204 judges they accepted) because these nominees consistently sided with corporate special-interests over the rights of ordinary Americans.

This time, Bush is ready to fight dirty to force these nominees through. Dick Cheney has even threatened to use a parliamentary trick to eliminate the centuries-old rule requiring judges to have broad support in the Senate. This would effectively silence all 44 Democratic senators and the 173 million Americans they represent—the majority of the country.

To ram his nominees through, Bush is hoping to use a parliamentary trick the Republicans refer to as the "nuclear option." For 200 years, if enough senators strongly objected to a federal judge, they could use a filibuster to force more debate until all their concerns were addressed. That's how Democrats blocked the worst of these 20 nominees last term. Actually changing the rule would require a 2/3 vote of the Senate—and Bush doesn't have near that level of support.

So instead, Vice President Cheney has threatened to abuse his authority as President of the Senate, and just declare that the right to filibuster judges is null and void. If Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist can twist enough arms to get 50 senators to support the ruling, the filibuster is history. For the first time ever, one party would have complete control over judicial nominations, all the way up to the Supreme Court.

Both parties in the Senate were given the power to approve or reject judicial nominations because—above all else—judges must be trusted by Americans on all sides to rule fairly. So why does Bush refuse to send a few replacement nominees both parties can agree on? Why is he so intent on smashing Democratic resistance to these and all future nominees? Because while his presidency will be over in 4 years, the judges he appoints will be on the bench for the rest of their lives

Idaho: Thanks very much for that link. I had tried to find that article through a Google search but couldn't come up with it. I'll read it and return later with my thoughts.

I feel nominations should be an up and down vote. Someone change my opinion...will ya?

Can you point to the place in the Constitution where Judges have to have a 2/3 vote to pass? Isn't that what a fillibuster is? Needing to have that mush of a majority to have them pass is used for several things, but not for judges. Please show me in the Constitution where this is shown!

Baldimo
Those are the rules that they have lived under for 200 or so years.
Are you under the mistaken belief that the constitution spells out every rule and procedure of our congress?

Can you please provide these Senate rules for judge confirmation?

There are only 7 places I believe in the Constitution where a super majority is needed. Electing judges is not one of them. Aren't you guys always on about the Constitution and how it needs to be followed? It doesn't matter what Senate rules are, it matters what is in the Constitution.

Baldimo
You want to know look it up. The fact is that is the current procedure. Were it not there would be no need for the "nuclear option" proposed by the republican dominated senate now would there?

The only reason this is being considered is because the Rep's have been too spineless to force a vote on the matter. I'm going by the Constitution rules, and would be willing to provide the information on that, you are the one who brought up the "last 200years it has been that way."

I thought you guys didn't care about tradition, and it was progressive to forget about tradition? Am I wrong in thinking this?

Baldimo

I have no idea what you are talking about and I doubt that you do either.
However, they can not force a vote without changing the rules. That should be obvious even to you.

Exactyl - it's PROCEDURE, not LAW. Senatorial procedure can be changed at the whim of the Senate, at any time. At one time, it was only changeable via Senate rules ammendment, but now, thanks to past precedent, it is changeable by 51% vote on the floor without ammendment to Senate rules. Senate rules have in the past, can now, and will in the future, be changed on the floor or by amendment. This is NOTHING NEW. What is new is the notion that it effectively takes a supermajority to confirm a judge in the current Senate - that IS the only true change of procedure that is happening right now.