Nbadan
05-24-2005, 02:18 AM
By Ian Pannell
BBC News, Washington
A small group of US Senators has reached a last-minute deal to avoid a major political showdown in Congress.
The Democrats and Republicans have been increasingly at odds over President George W Bush's judicial nominations.
The agreement averts a threat to change one of the US Senate's most cherished traditions - use of the filibuster. Any Senator can single-handedly block a vote by using the so-called filibuster, whereby a politician literally blocks debate by constantly talking.
A filibuster can only be broken by a two-thirds majority, which is more votes than the ruling Republican party has. So they threatened to abolish this rule, overturning a centuries-old tradition. In practice this is about the people President Bush has chosen to fill federal court vacancies. The judges have the support of the Republicans but they have been criticised for being too right-wing by Democrats.
Now the Democrats have agreed that most of these judges will be given a simple majority vote, though they reserve the right to filibuster in extraordinary circumstances.
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4574235.stm)
Who is to define extraordinary circumstances? Seems to me that the Republican Senators got most of what they wanted, and the Democratic Senators now get to wimper home on the weekends with their heads between their legs.
With a meeting scheduled for early evening, negotiators were focusing on a compromise covering the fate of several of Bush's current nominees as well as ground rules for considering future appointments.
Under a proposal outlined in a draft agreement last Friday, Owen would be cleared for a final confirmation vote, as would Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, Richard Griffin, Susan Neilson and David McKeague, all of whom have been named to appeals courts. There would be no such guarantee for William Myers and Henry Saad, two other nominees that Democrats have blocked.
AP (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILIBUSTER_FIGHT?SITE=UTSOD&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME)
About the ONLY positive thing that I can see out of this deal. Apparently, Senators Robert Byrd and John Warner agreed to set up a bipartisan commission that would screen candidates and make recommendations to the President for judicial appointments. This is what really pissed me off when Bush first took office in 2001--he announced shortly after taking office that he would not be submitting his judicial nominations to an established review board set up by the American Bar Association for screening judicial nominations, a procedure that had been in use by Presidents from BOTH parties for well over 50 years.
That was the first clear signal, IMO, that Bush had no intentions of "playing nice" on ANYTHING! If Bush does not abide by this bipartisan commission that Warner and Byrd are establishing, it seems to me that Bush will be in big trouble with the U.S. Senate. This is not to be taken lightly either (although I suspect that Bush in his arrogance IS taking it lightly). Recall the reaction of some of the most conservative federal court judges when Tom DeLay pulled that stunt with the Terri Schiavo case. Even Clarence Thomas had some choice words!
BBC News, Washington
A small group of US Senators has reached a last-minute deal to avoid a major political showdown in Congress.
The Democrats and Republicans have been increasingly at odds over President George W Bush's judicial nominations.
The agreement averts a threat to change one of the US Senate's most cherished traditions - use of the filibuster. Any Senator can single-handedly block a vote by using the so-called filibuster, whereby a politician literally blocks debate by constantly talking.
A filibuster can only be broken by a two-thirds majority, which is more votes than the ruling Republican party has. So they threatened to abolish this rule, overturning a centuries-old tradition. In practice this is about the people President Bush has chosen to fill federal court vacancies. The judges have the support of the Republicans but they have been criticised for being too right-wing by Democrats.
Now the Democrats have agreed that most of these judges will be given a simple majority vote, though they reserve the right to filibuster in extraordinary circumstances.
BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4574235.stm)
Who is to define extraordinary circumstances? Seems to me that the Republican Senators got most of what they wanted, and the Democratic Senators now get to wimper home on the weekends with their heads between their legs.
With a meeting scheduled for early evening, negotiators were focusing on a compromise covering the fate of several of Bush's current nominees as well as ground rules for considering future appointments.
Under a proposal outlined in a draft agreement last Friday, Owen would be cleared for a final confirmation vote, as would Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, Richard Griffin, Susan Neilson and David McKeague, all of whom have been named to appeals courts. There would be no such guarantee for William Myers and Henry Saad, two other nominees that Democrats have blocked.
AP (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/F/FILIBUSTER_FIGHT?SITE=UTSOD&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&SECTION=HOME)
About the ONLY positive thing that I can see out of this deal. Apparently, Senators Robert Byrd and John Warner agreed to set up a bipartisan commission that would screen candidates and make recommendations to the President for judicial appointments. This is what really pissed me off when Bush first took office in 2001--he announced shortly after taking office that he would not be submitting his judicial nominations to an established review board set up by the American Bar Association for screening judicial nominations, a procedure that had been in use by Presidents from BOTH parties for well over 50 years.
That was the first clear signal, IMO, that Bush had no intentions of "playing nice" on ANYTHING! If Bush does not abide by this bipartisan commission that Warner and Byrd are establishing, it seems to me that Bush will be in big trouble with the U.S. Senate. This is not to be taken lightly either (although I suspect that Bush in his arrogance IS taking it lightly). Recall the reaction of some of the most conservative federal court judges when Tom DeLay pulled that stunt with the Terri Schiavo case. Even Clarence Thomas had some choice words!