Graham & DeWine, members of Gang of 14, issue warning to Dems!!!

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

from article

...Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, fired back Sunday, saying that if the Democrats staged a filibuster against Judge Alito or Judge Luttig because of their conservatism, "the filibuster will not stand."

Article

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Graham's comment is very important...I'm shocked no one on this forum is responding to it.

[ATFFL]

Parties Set Stage for Showdown on Court Choice

Cleaning up the link.  You will get more responses if it doesn't break the page.

[MODU]

Graham's comment is very important...I'm shocked no one on this forum is responding to it.

It's just rhetoric at the moment.  Acta non Verba.

[opebo]

What is that fruit Graham doing in the 'Gang of 14'?  I thought he was a very extreme right-winger.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

from confirmthem.com

DeWine’s on Board! Comments (71)October 31, 2005 at 6:31 pm. By Carol --> About Analysis & Predictions, AlitoJust heard Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH) — of the Gang of 14 and the Judiciary Committee — on the Hugh Hewitt Show, where he enthusiastically endorsed Alito’s nomination.

Even more significantly, he stated that he would, indeed, invoke the constitutional option should the Democrats try to filibuster Alito. This is quite a scoop — read the entire transcript at Radioblogger.

Given that Lindsay Graham — also of the Gang of 14 and the Judiciary Committee — has pledged that he, too, would vote for the constitutional option, only one more member of the Gang needs to come forward in order to demonstrate conclusively that Democratic efforts to filibuster this nomination would be futile.

Paging Senator McCain

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

There's no point in not using a fillibuster just because social conservatives like Graham and DeWine would be happy.  The Democratic party has caved far too many times. They make a stand now, or forever be known as spineless losers. I'm serious, the Democratic party will be destroyed if they do not get 41 Senators on board here.

[A18]

Why is another need? With 50 votes, Cheney can break the tie.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Why is another need? With 50 votes, Cheney can break the tie.

Break a tie for what?

[A18]

The nuclear option.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The nuclear option.

If you guys want to do an illegal rule change, bring it on.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm

[A18]

A rule that conflicts with the Constitution is void.

[Emsworth]

A rule that conflicts with the Constitution is void.

I do not feel that this particular rule is unconstitutional.

The Constitution states, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings." Of course, this entails the power to determine the length of debate. If the Senate determines that debate on some topic shall continue until a two-thirds majority votes for cloture, then it is well within its powers.

That said, if the Republicans do pursue the "nuclear option," no court may reverse their actions. The Senate is the ultimate judge of its own rules; no judicial body may intervene.

[A18]

If a rule required a four-fifths majority to amend the Constitution, would that be legal?

Anyway, the point is that jfern's quotation of the rules is irrelevant, because the other side's argument is that the rule is unconstitutional as it applies to this circumstance.

[Emsworth]

If a rule required a four-fifths majority to amend the Constitution, would that be legal?

Certainly not, but a distinction needs to be made between the majority required for passage, and the majority required to end debate. In the earlier days of the Senate, debate was unlimited; the cloture rule is in fact a weakening of that provision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is certainly true. The Senate (or, the majority) may determine for itself whether a rule is constitutional or not. If it does deem a rule unconstitutional, then there's nothing that the other side can do.

[A18]

A limit on if you can vote is a limit on if you can amend the Constitution.

Originally, the majority could limit debate. The filibuster was created by mistake in the early 1800s when the Senate cleaned up its rulebook and accidentally disposed of a rule allowing the majority to bring cloture.

Even then, it took them a while to figure it out. Filibusters did not begin in earnest until the Democratic and Whig parties formed decades later.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Seriously, somebody sort that opening post out so that I can actually read people's comments.

Ok, I made it more clear that the quote was coming from the article.  You'll have to read the article to fully understand the quote.

[J. J.]

The important thing about the "two-thirds of the Senators present and voting" rule is that the Dems have keep 28 Seats in the chamber at any given time.   The Republicans only have to keep one person in there at any given time.   If they don't, they risk not only only losing the vote on the nomination, but perhaps most of their debate rights for the remainder of the term.  After a few days, I doubt if they will be able to hold it.

[ATFFL]

Seriously, somebody sort that opening post out so that I can actually read people's comments.

Ok, I made it more clear that the quote was coming from the article.  You'll have to read the article to fully understand the quote.

You need to change the link so the page is not broken.  Or Dave can do it or the local mod.  Put it in [url =Link Address]Name of Link[/url ]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If a rule required a four-fifths majority to amend the Constitution, would that be legal?

Anyway, the point is that jfern's quotation of the rules is irrelevant, because the other side's argument is that the rule is unconstitutional as it applies to this circumstance.

The rule only requires a 2/3rds majority of those present and voting to change the rules. That's not a steep requirement. For a long time, 1 Senator was allowed to fillibuster by themselves. They rely heavily on unanimous consent. If the Republicans illegally get rid of the fillibuster, they're going to discover that Demcrats will rightfully block them from ever doing anything. We've been the loyal (and quite often spineless) opposition all along. If the Republicans do an illegal rule change, that will change.

[A18]

As I said, the filibuster was created by mistake in the early 1800s when the Senate cleaned up its rulebook and accidentally disposed of a rule allowing the majority to bring cloture. Even then, it took them a while to figure it out. Filibusters did not begin in earnest until the Democratic and Whig parties formed decades later.

I'd love to see absolutely nothing get done for years and years (neither party is going to get 60 votes any time soon). But the filibuster is illegal in all of its forms, not just with regard to judges, and should be eradicated entirely.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

You need to change the link so the page is not broken.  Or Dave can do it or the local mod.  Put it in [url =Link Address]Name of Link[/url ]

Ok, now see if it works

[Cubby]

But the filibuster is illegal in all of its forms, not just with regard to judges, and should be eradicated entirely.

Would you still be saying that if the Democrats had 55 Senators, or 65? No, if you were in our position you would be very thankful for the filibuster.

[A18]

Yes, but how I would act is irrelevant.

[AuH2O]

As a factual matter, the filibuster was totally unintentional and the result of a snafu during an editing of Senate rules back in the day. But its been around a long time... then again, for most of history it wasn't abused like Democrats try now.