Reid Says He Doesn't Intend to Filibuster

[laylah]

WASHINGTON - Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has privately told individual Republicans he doesn't intend to block votes on any Supreme Court nominees except in extreme cases, according to officials familiar with the conversations.

*snip*

The disclosures illustrate the challenge facing the Nevada Democrat, who is struggling against a GOP attempt to change Senate procedures so court candidates can no longer be subjected to the 60-vote requirement of a filibuster.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050506/ap_on_go_co/senate_judges

[renaissanceguy]

1. What the FUCK is going on?

All this news today about Dems losing their spines and backing down.

We need a fucking revolution to overthrow the fascists and these apologists.

[Pirate Smile]

33. This is about future Supreme Court nominees NOT the current

judges the Dems have already filibustered.

A little more from the article

"At the same time, Reid has declined in private — as well as in public — to offer the type of firm no-filibuster assurance that might help him prevail over Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. in a struggle over President Bush's conservative court appointments and rules covering future confirmations.

The disclosures illustrate the challenge facing the Nevada Democrat, who is struggling against a GOP attempt to change Senate procedures so court candidates can no longer be subjected to the 60-vote requirement of a filibuster.

As leader of a minority, Reid needs the support of wavering GOP senators if he is to force a compromise or win a showdown on the Senate floor. Yet he also must take into account members of his own rank and file as well as activist groups that are adamant about preserving their right to block votes on Bush's current and future nominees.

"I can never say there will never be a filibuster because I cannot say that," he said recently on the Senate floor. "But I don't think this Senate is in the mood for a number of filibusters."


He left open the option that if the Democrats think a Supreme Court nominee is "EXTREME" they would filibuster - that is if they even can anymore!

We have to prevent the Republicans from going nuclear or else the Dems wont be able to filibuster even the MOST extreme nominee for the Supreme Court Bush can find.

[TheFarseer]

47. How can he say they are going to filibuster a Supreme Court

candidate? We don't know who the nominee would be. Why should we threaten to filibuster a facelss/nameless nominee? He said except in an extreme case we wouldn't filibuster. I think that has been the policy all along and I think it is the correct policy.

[regnaD kciN]

48. What the FUCK is going on is that Reid is framing this perfectly...

...as in "we're not obstructionist -- we're only going to block extremists"...which is exactly what we will then label whichever wingnuts Bush nominates. (Of course, in the unlikely event that he nominates a moderate, of course we'll be nice and bi-partisan. But what is the likelihood of that? And isn't the goal to make sure that we only get moderates, not "extremists" placed on the SCOTUS over the next four years?)

[TheWraith]

60. Precisely. This is Pearl Harbor strategy.

If you let your enemy make the first strike, particularly one perceived as excessive, it allows you to stomp on him more violently than you otherwise could, in the name of self-defense.

Look at it this way. Reid says "Of course we wouldn't filibuster, except to stop an extremist." Then, if the Republicans go nuclear, they're as much as saying that they intend to nominate extremists to the Supreme Court. This would then give the Dems cover for shutting down the Senate, which is otherwise a very unpopular move.

[xultar]

2. This is a good thing people. IT makes their attempts to use the

:nuke: option more :crazy:

[renaissanceguy]

6. Nope, don't think so.

The repugs are going to go 'nukular' anyway. We might as well make it worth their while and stand ON PRINCIPLE.

[xultar]

20. Hey, it looks like you don't get his strategy. That's o.k. It will come

clear soon enough.

Being a bad ass and overtly strong headded isn't always the best strategy to get your way.

The rethugs use BAD ASS brut strength not their brains. You want us to act like REthugs?

We're more intelligent than that people.

[Goldeneye]

17. I think so too.

Reid looks fair and willing to compromise, the republicans seem like bullies. Reid has no reason to back down. The public is behind him.

[UCLA Dem]

38. Yes, and it will make the Dems seem the party of reason that is willing to

work with others, not just trying to shove their ideologies down some else's throat.

[UCLA Dem]

37. Makes us looks like the reasonable ones with the current situation.

[Pithy Cherub]

3. Is this the opening act in the great political kabuki dance?

On its face this is a concession. After two more seconds, I would hope that he is using this to show he is trying to work with others so as not to tarnish Dems. On three more seconds, why now....

:hide:

[KittyWampus]

30. So Your Brilliaint Idea Is Democrats Should Filibuster ANY Bush Nominee?

[Pithy Cherub]

50. Nope - just "brilliant" if it is part of a grander strategy.

Like chess. Opening move... and not sarcastic or judgmental in my case. ;)

[democracyindanger]

4. And before people go aggro on Reid

remember that this is 1)according to unnamed sources, and 2)these last nominees ARE extreme cases--so even if it does turn out he said it, he's just reiterating that he's going to filibuster 'em.

[UCLA Dem]

40. If they don't put up someone who's reasonable.

He can't just very well say "we're going to block any nominee," it would be counterproductive and not sit well with the public.

[democracyindanger]

46. Exactly. Plus, the political judo move Reid is pulling is brilliant

Yet again, he's forced Frist into showing that the Republicans are being completely unreasonable in order to pander to his Christian Wrong base.

Put more simply, Reid is saying, "We're willing to be reasonable," and Frist is forced into replying, "Well, we're not."

The folks who are complaining that Reid's being spineless, blah, blah, blah, are missing out on something to be happy about: A Dem publicly outsmarting the Republicans--as well as getting the MSM to run a story about it.

Sheesh. Sometimes it seems like some people just follow politics to complain.

[UCLA Dem]

52. I think everyone is just a little fearful. The Dems have not been great

and they don't want to be let down. We haven't had a good leader in congress in a while, so I think its going to take some time to get used to.

[democracyindanger]

55. Yeah, you may be right.

I suppose I'm being a bit of a kneejerk in my own way.

I hope you understand the difficulty it takes for a Duck to admit that to a Bruin.

[Walt Starr]

5. Simple strategy

There will be two nominees before anything can change in the actual makeup. Rhenquist will leave and Scalia will be nominated as Chief Justice. After that confirmation there will be a nominee to replace Scalia.

Two nominations where no fight from the Dems are required. They get to be all peachy keen and bi-partisan, TWICE!

When O'Connor retires, all hell breaks loose.

[xultar]

18. I knew you'd get it Walt. n/t

[pie]

29. Thank you for the explanation

That makes sense

[sandnsea]

62. Blimey

I think you've got it!! Excellent call, I bet that's it exactly.

[JohnLocke]

64. Bingo.

Dead-on.

[Eloriel]

7. Well that's just great

So much for that new Dem spinal implant.

:grr:

[Dr Ron]

8. Extreme cases

It all comes down to how he defines this.

[xray s]

9. and what exactly is wrong with his position?

He won't filibuster Supreme Court nominees, unless they are extremists.

Like the 10 Circuit Court judges currently being held up.

Seems to me Reid is showing the public that that Democrats are the reasonable ones, and the Republicans are the unreasonable ones, insisting on approval of even the most extreme judges.

[Mass]

10. Except in extreme cases

Once again, AP has a misleading title.

Of course, he is not going to filibuster acceptable names, but he already said that Clarence Thomas was not acceptable for example.

What did you expect him to say? that he would filibuster everybody.

[xultar]

16. Let them panic and blow Reid a new hole. Strategy isn't apparent

to some right off the bat.

[grytpype]

34. and the Dems decide what an "Extreme case" is

There's nothing wrong with what Reid said.

[UCLA Dem]

41. Yes, it leaves the framing of the debate up to us. very good move.

[buff2]

11. Reid is a Tom Daschle clone....

Another weak ass democrat who wants to be "bi-partisan". No wonder we always lose. :argh:

[gulfcoastliberal]

21. Agreed, I think Daschle was actually stronger than Reid.

Daschle lost so they replaced him with an anti-choice, conservative Mormon who's only accomplishment in terms of uniting opposition has been the weak-ass Bush "SS reform with private accounts but no other details" plan. And some dems reportedly will consider the repuke SS destruction plan when/if it is released. I'm so tired of all the sellout BS. We need backbone and braveness, not folding up like a beach chair every time a repuke says "boo".

[UCLA Dem]

43. No way. He's much better than Daschle. No more "loyal opposition" shit...

He has stood up to them much better than before and more and more senate Dems are following his lead. I am impressed by him. He knows how to play to game and make those loonies look like the wing-nuts they are.

[Dickie Flatt]

24. Oh, please

Think about it: how is Harry going to define "extreme"?

He has shown us that he knows how to play the game. Do we really have to lynch the guy every time he does anything less than physically assault the Republicans?

[0007]

53. Get a grip and show support!

....and who are "we"?

[Gyre]

12. Very tai chi Harry

Smart move!!! His stock just went up in my brain. :)

Gyre

[xultar]

14. AMEN n/t

[onenote]

15. agreed

Harry is a pretty astute politician...he's put the burden back on the WHouse -- if you send up nominations that aren't extreme, you'll get them confirmed; send up whackos, you won't.

onenote

[Nickster]

27. You are correct sir.

[AndyTiedye]

13. The People that ** Has Been Re-nominating ARE Extreme Cases

and we have every expectation that his USSC nominations will be just as bad.

If ** actually nominates a moderate instead of a raving Fundie, of course the Dems wouldln't fiibuster,
but how likely is that?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

36. We can help

by telling folks how extreme these judges are. Janice Brown is against ANY government regulation on buisness-which means she would think it just dandy if a porno shop and liquor store were right next to a church or school (tell your conservative acquaintence about that and ask them how that jibes with their values).

[charlyvi]

19. When Harry Reid took over position of

Minority Leader, I cringed. Then he proved me wrong. I trust him; what he does and says isn't always clearly understandable, but he's usually right. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt, while following this very carefully. He's a master at political subtlety; let's not jump on him too soon.

[xultar]

22. "et's not jump on him too soon." eat our own....n/t

[leQ]

51. i'm glad you said that, because i had almost given up on him

and dean's been a bit too silent for my taste.

where's my fire and brimstone? it's the only language these poopyhead repugs understand.

[charlyvi]

59. That's true.

But we're not trying to appeal to the poopyhead repugs. We want the moderates in their party to come over; we want THEM to be the shrill radicals, we want THEM to show their ass.

[mourningdove92]

23. I think he is playing it just fine.

Remember, Frist hasn't pulled the nuclear trigger yet. Why????

Not enough support. Keep on playing them Reid.

[Pissed_Progressive]

25. I agree...

Reid is well-seasoned clever, old fox who has been tangoing with the Republinazis for a long time. He knows what he's doing, I have faith.

[wakeme2008]

28. I think he is being the old fox on this one

and he did not say he would not filibuster non SC judges.

[Arkana]

26. Harry Reid plays the game better than any of us know

and we NEED someone like him in a leadership spot. One who will trick the Republicans into shooting themselves in the foot over and over until they shoot themselves out of power.

[Zorra]

31. Damn. Reid must have dropped the soap in the corporate bathroom again.

[Itsthetruth]

32. What's Wrong With Democratic Senators Collaborating With Bush?

Democrats in the Senate should just continue to vote for Bush's presidential appointments and legislative agenda. After all, Senator Reid bragged about his lead role in getting the anti-consumer "class action" and bankruptcy bills passed in the Senate.

Now that was bi-partisanship we can all be proud of!

Like John Kerry pointed out when he was running for President: "The Democratic Party is not an opposition party".

So what's the problem folks?

You know that if the good Senator Reid goes after Republicans too hard or even, let's pray not, votes against their policies, the Republicans will attack Senator Reid!!!!

We can't have that.

[QC]

54. What would you suggest in this case?

Should he announce, long before there's even a nominee, that he will filibuster anyone Bush nominates, thus playing directly into the "obstructionist" talking point? Great strategy there.

[Dickie Flatt]

69. Wtf? His position makes perfect sense

We won't filibuster unless the nominee is an extremist.

How can you argue with that? If Bush nominates a moderate, why would we filibuster that? It would be amazing if he did, but if it happened, the only reason we'd filibuster is to STICK IT TO BUSH and if that the only reason, well, it's a pretty unwarranted filibuster.

[UCLA Dem]

35. What?? Why?? I don't understand??--I get it now. Good move Harry.

[Mountainman]

39. Each day I get one step closer to turning Green

Kerry not for gay marriage, many Dems willing to vote for anti abortionists, giving into the judges and the bankruptcy bill and all. Clinton wanting a Dem social security plan at the very time the right is about to implode on themselves over it.

I haven't left the Dem party it's leaving me. I will never vote for a center right Dem and neither will many millions like me so go ahead all you who believe in a big tent. You will find yourself sleeping alone under it.

[DearAbby]

42. Reid is playing this well, He never said they would not filibuster

extreme nominees, He is coming out being reasonable and you cry foul? Fight even reason? Stand tough no matter what? Pick the battles. He is. Good strategy. He is stating that each nominee will be examined as they should be, and judged based on that. As it should be. No where is it stated that they would not use this option when needed.

[Mountainman]

45. Well stock up on coat hangers and bibles, you'll be needing them.

[DearAbby]

44. Kerry not for gay marriage?

I am sure he is for equal civil rights and that falls into that catagory.

[rocktivity]

49. I think Reid is just being "as dumb as a fox" again

He knows perfectly well that whatever he has been anonymously quoted as telling "individual" Republicans "privately" isn't worth the paper it's written on.

:headbang:
rocknation

[depakid]

56. Just showing his true colors

You just watch- he'll keep selling out. That's all he's done since becoming minority leader-

I don't expect the man to change his stripes.

Harry will keep letting the Republicans have their way on every issue and every nomination- and DU'rs will find ways to defend his "strategy" every time.

[QC]

57. And no matter what Ried does, other DUers will reflexively condemn him. nt

[Mass]

58. Without even reading what he said

[depakid]

61. If the man ever actualy does something

to oppose the far right agenda- other than flap his lips- then maybe I'll get off his case.

To date he has done nothing substantive at all- except perhaps cross over to the Repulican side to vote for the bankruptcy bill.

This man is going sell you all down the river- like I said, wait and see.

[democracyindanger]

68. "sell you all"

Already jumped ship, I see. Or were you ever on board?

[Dickie Flatt]

71. How is this selling out?

As I said in another comment tonight, this makes perfect sense. We won't filibuster unless Bush nominates an extremist. If he puts up a moderate, however unlikely that may be, there's no reason to filibuster. But if he nominates a wingnut, we filibuster.

Can ANYONE explain to me why that is a bad position to take?

[JohnLocke]

63. Before people go ape-shit, note "except in extreme cases."

[QC]

65. Yeah, but when did a mere fact ever stop our local Dem-haters

from throwing drama tantrums and issuing fatwas against everyone who doesn't meet their exacting standards of purity?

[JohnLocke]

66. You are my hero.

:yourock:

[Dickie Flatt]

70. QC wins.

[JCMach1]

67. Grrrrrr... Why not a Mutually Assured Destruction plan

to combat their 'Nuclear Option'... Democrats start a scorched earth policy that delays ALL Republican legislation until they change the rule back!!!

Damn it! Get some backbone Dems...!

[Nevernose]

72. Good move, Harry -- losing issue -- death of the filibuster

Man, if you think the GOP/Faux have tried to drag us over the coals over the issue of a few district court judges, wait'll we try and filibuster a Supreme Court nominee.

Right now the GOP still doesn't have the guts to end the filibuster. But if (and when) it comes down to a Supremo, the Repukes WILL put in one of their guys, no matter what we do. It's better to just raise as many questions in the confirmation process as possible and not lose the filibuster forever.

I don't think it's spineless, I think it's pragmatic. "Pick your battles" my mother always said.