Looks like there may be some strong-arming going on soon.
So, going on the idea that they have a mandate ("the will of the people"), they want to make it impossible for that will to be challenged? I wish more people would get upset about this. Aren't checks and balances the whole freaking point?"Frist said, "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end."
"The American people have reelected a president and significantly expanded the Senate majority," Frist said. "It would be wrong to allow a minority to defy the will of a clear and decisive majority ....""
[. . .]
"Having gained four seats in the Nov. 2 elections, which will increase their Senate majority next year to 55, Republicans have a number of options, a top aide said.
They hope enough Democrats, mindful of the election results, will now break ranks and vote to end filibusters against judicial nominees, the aide said.
If that does not work, the Senate could try to force through a proposed rule change, offered by Frist in May 2003, that could stop a filibuster with a simple-majority vote.A two-thirds vote could be needed to change the rules, however, and Republicans have conceded in the past that they do not have that kind of support.
Another possible option would have the Senate chair declare a filibuster against a judicial nominee unconstitutional. Only a simple-majority vote would be needed to uphold the ruling.
Yet some Senate Republicans have voiced reservations. They warn such a move would further strain relations and come back to hurt them in a future Democratic-led Senate." - from Thomas Ferraro, Reuters
|