Wednesday, March 16, 2005
The Constitutional Option
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats threatened Tuesday to slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments.
Republicans rebutted swiftly, Frist in the lead. "To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan. The solution is simple: Return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges," he said in a written statement.
"The Democrats have it backwards," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "They broke with a long-standing tradition of giving judicial nominations that reach the Senate floor an up or down vote, and we simply want to restore that tradition."
Rush: Let's talk about this constitutional option. The Democrats call it the nuclear option, but as I keep saying they're the ones that have initiated the nuclear option by filibustering judicial nominees when the Constitution says nothing about that.
The Democrats are opposing this with everything they've got. They're opposing this with more fervor than they are opposing Social Security. They're opposing this constitutional option with more energy and more purpose than they are engaged in any other issue that has come before the Senate. The question is why? I think I have a bit of an answer.
We already know that much of the left has become irrelevant. The rantings and ravings of the kook fringe that now comprise the mainstream of the Democratic Party have rendered their party pretty much irrelevant.
If the Republicans do initiate the so-called constitutional option and clear the way for the confirmation of the judges that the president wants to appear on the appellate courts and the district courts and the Supreme Court, let me ask you this: just what purpose would be left for the Democrats to serve in the Senate?
Maybe opposing Social Security... I wouldn't be surprised that if the constitutional option is implemented and the Bush nominees are confirmed, Democrats could retire from the Senate in droves. The doors to the Senate chamber wouldn't be wide enough to be able to handle the stampede outta there.
Their single reason, their only reason for being right now is to filibuster judicial appointments so that there will be no vote on Bush judicial appointees. Once they can't do that, once they can't stop these nominations, then you have one less reason for all those 45 egos to sit around and be reminded they're a minority party. Remember the retirement in droves by Democrats from the House after 1994? They're not there to compete in the arena of ideas.
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats threatened Tuesday to slow or stop most Senate business if Republicans unilaterally change the rules to assure confirmation of President Bush's controversial court appointments.
Republicans rebutted swiftly, Frist in the lead. "To shut down the Senate would be irresponsible and partisan. The solution is simple: Return to 200 years of tradition and allow up or down votes on judges," he said in a written statement.
"The Democrats have it backwards," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "They broke with a long-standing tradition of giving judicial nominations that reach the Senate floor an up or down vote, and we simply want to restore that tradition."
Rush: Let's talk about this constitutional option. The Democrats call it the nuclear option, but as I keep saying they're the ones that have initiated the nuclear option by filibustering judicial nominees when the Constitution says nothing about that.
The Democrats are opposing this with everything they've got. They're opposing this with more fervor than they are opposing Social Security. They're opposing this constitutional option with more energy and more purpose than they are engaged in any other issue that has come before the Senate. The question is why? I think I have a bit of an answer.
We already know that much of the left has become irrelevant. The rantings and ravings of the kook fringe that now comprise the mainstream of the Democratic Party have rendered their party pretty much irrelevant.
If the Republicans do initiate the so-called constitutional option and clear the way for the confirmation of the judges that the president wants to appear on the appellate courts and the district courts and the Supreme Court, let me ask you this: just what purpose would be left for the Democrats to serve in the Senate?
Maybe opposing Social Security... I wouldn't be surprised that if the constitutional option is implemented and the Bush nominees are confirmed, Democrats could retire from the Senate in droves. The doors to the Senate chamber wouldn't be wide enough to be able to handle the stampede outta there.
Their single reason, their only reason for being right now is to filibuster judicial appointments so that there will be no vote on Bush judicial appointees. Once they can't do that, once they can't stop these nominations, then you have one less reason for all those 45 egos to sit around and be reminded they're a minority party. Remember the retirement in droves by Democrats from the House after 1994? They're not there to compete in the arena of ideas.
