We received our National Republican Senate Campaign Leadership Survey in the mail today. We filled it out. We marked our choices. In the box where you put your campaign donation, we marked it, and put nine cents in the blank for the amount of the donation. We then put a nickel and four pennys onto a blank piece of paper and taped them to it, to prevent them from sliding around in the envelope. We put everything in the return envelope, and mailed it off.

Some might say that we are grandstanding, or are trying to be a smart aleck, such is not the case. We are simply trying to prove the point we made here, here, and here.

We would not be in the position today with stealth nominees to the Supreme Court if Senate Republicans had held their ground and destroyed the Democrats un-constitutional use of filibustering judicial nominees. The gang of fourteen is as much to blame for this situation as well. There were seven Republicans on that gang who should be remembered when their election comes around again.

For now all we can do is try and put some backbone into the Republican Leadership to destroy the act of filibustering judicial nominees. The best way to accomplish that is by withholding monetary support. Sooner or later they will get the message.

We would encourage everyone who gets the survey to do exactly as we have done. The message will be loud and clear.

Democrats have been gearing up for the judicial nomination wars since they lost the Senate to the Republicans. The Judiciary is their last vestage of power, and they are holding on with a death grip. What we have seen to this point with filibusters, maneuverings, calling for documents, then more documents, are all attempts to obstruct any nomination made by the President. This is all a smoke screen for their attempt to impose their minority power beyond it’s scope, and get only their approved nominees on the floor for a vote.

A Supreme Court nominee seems immanent and thus the latest proposal by Senate Democrats for a consultation. Bench Memos, has a post by Bradford Berenson entitled, A Tactic for War, not a Proposal for Peace. Here is in part what he says about this Democrat proposal:

” First, let’s be clear about what the Senators (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

In a Washington Times article written by, Charles Hurt today entitled, Senate Democrats develop new filibuster strategy in which he describes the new strategy by Senate Democrats to filibuster Presidential nominees.

It seems that a direct filibuster is proving to be costly to Democrats which is the reason for the new tactic. This new strategy is an attempt to keep the nominees in the Judiciary Committee forever, and if passed out of there, to stall on the floor by the “non-filibuster”, (request documents forever while refusing to grant cloture) filibuster. According to Mr. Hurt’s article, qualifications are no longer important, but ideology is the most important factor to some. Here is a quote from the article:

“Mr. Schumer was asked whether Democrats would filibuster Judge Boyle if Republicans don’t produce additional unpublished opinions.
“We’ll have to see what happens,” he said. “First, we want to see if there’s a good-faith effort to get them. It is hard to get unpublished opinions.
“Second, when we get them, if there’s no smoking gun it’s not going to matter,” Mr. Schumer said. “If we think there really is a smoking gun — that we need more time to go forward — so be it.”

Mr. Hurt’s article is worth reading.

So the deal by the gang of fourteen may have all been for nothing after all. If a nominee does make it to the floor, we can only hope for Majority Leader Frist to trigger the nuclear option, and end this unconstitutional nonsense once and for all.

With all that has happened this week in the judicial nominee confirmations, we should not be too jubilant over the fact that Senate Democrats finally fulfilled their constitutional duty in giving a few nominees an up or down vote.

The Senate Democrats and their MSM allies have found themselves in a losing position on this issue, and they changed their rhetoric yesterday to one of blaming the Senate Republicans, and the Bush administration for the lack of time spent on legislative issues in the senate. It is they who have caused a lack of attention, if there is one, to legislative issues by their obstructionism on judicial nominees.

We should also remember that the “deal” by the gang of fourteen is only temporary. Senate Democrats will use the filibuster again, and the decision to do so will come shortly. They have endured a lot of criticism from their extreme liberal (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Our thanks to Confirm Them, for pointing to a a Hardball Transcript, in their post entitled, June 6 Hardball. Senator Byrd’s comments on Hardball are as follows:

“Well, it means exactly what it says. The president shall have the power to appoint, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint certain officers of the United States, including judges to the Supreme Court.

Now, what you have here is an attempt to pack the courts. FDR tried that in 1937. He failed, because the Senate filibustered and the people became informed as to what was going on. Here we are. We’re talking about federal judges, people who are appointed for a lifetime, for a lifetime, on the federal bench. And the president shall appoint by and with the advice and consent.

Well, there has been a lot of talk about (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Just like the writers at Red State, we too have a day job, and have to make a living for our family, so here are a couple of interesting links.

First, Hugh Hewitt has two great articles. The first is, A house on fire. Here is a part:

“Whether this was a blunder or a plan to recover from a blunder, we won’t know for years. Mr. McCain at first said he would “listen to the leadership” regarding judicial nomination procedure, only to suddenly, on an apparent impulse, declare to Chris Matthews that he would vote against ending the disfigured filibuster. The backlash against him was immediate and intense. Perhaps he thought he could undo the damage to his carefully planned political rehabilitation with a bold “compromise.” The result seems just the opposite. Not only is his political house on fire, so too is (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Peggy Noonan is at her finest in this piece in the Wall Street Opinion Journal, entitled, Mr. Narcissus Goes to Washington. This is just enough to make you go read the whole article:

“John McCain wryly reminded us not to miss A&E’s biography of his heroic Vietnam experience. Joe Lieberman referred to the group as “this band of brothers, and sisters.” But my favorite was Lindsey Graham, who said, “I know there will be folks ‘back home’ who will be angry, but that’s only because they’re not as sophisticated and high-minded as I am. Actually they’re rather stupid, which is why they’re not in the Senate and I am. But I have 3 1/2 years to charm them out of their narrow-minded resentments, and watch me, baby.”

Oh, excuse me, that’s not what he said. That’s only what he meant. It was the invisible scroll as (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Our thanks to Confirm Them for their editorial today, On the constitutionality of Senate Rule XXII:, which points to the John Jay Hooker Center for Election and Campaign Finance Reform.

Mr. Hooker wrote in an artical yesterday, entitled, Senator Frist is Right - Compromise is Wrong, where he makes a compelling case that judicial nominee filibustering is un-constitutional. This is what he wrote:

“Sen. Frist has every right, and indeed the duty, to see that every presidential nominee for the Federal bench at every level gets an up or down vote. That is the constitutional requirement, notwithstanding the fact that the Senate for 200 years has failed to acknowledge the constitutional requirement set out in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2, which mandates that the Senate advise and consent with respect to all judicial nominees. The requirement is (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

What follows is the Oath of Office taken by every Senator prior to being seated in the Senate of the United States of America.

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The source of the oath is taken from the Senate website found here.

These seven Republican Senators broke their oath of office and defied the constitution, when signing onto the “compromise deal”. The States they represent are in parentheses.

John McCain (AR)
John Warner (VA)
Mike DeWine (OH)
(Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Robert Novak has a commentary on Real Clear Politics this morning which backs our theory we published here, yesterday. His commentary, Senate’s Sham Debate outlines the following:

“Senators droned on last week, supposedly debating two female nominees for the U.S. appellate bench, but it was a sham. The real issue was the future makeup of the Supreme Court, which explains the audacious Democratic strategy of blocking President Bush’s choices for lower courts. The focus on the high court also has resulted in failure so far in seeking a negotiated settlement.”

Sen. Allen predicts showdown will end in ‘nuclear option’ in a Washington Times article written by James G. Lakely and Charles Hurt.

Confirm Them has all the latest on the filibuster, here.

As we have written here before, filibustering is about power, control of the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Senator Elizabeth Dole, writes these words via the Washington Times, in an op-ed piece entitled, Nominees deserve better. Here is the excerpt:

“Resorting to half-truths and invective to advance a political objective — the establishment of a new 60-vote supermajority requirement for the confirmation of federal judges — is deeply unfair to those who have spent a lifetime building reputations for fairness and intellectual probity.”

She further writes the following:

“While the Democrats cannot plausibly justify overturning more than 200 years of Senate tradition by filibustering the president’s judicial nominees, let’s also remember it is equally unacceptable to treat these nominees as political pinatas to further this aim.
Justices Owen and Brown, and Judge Boyle have earned their reputations as common-sense jurists who apply the law fairly and impartially. Attacking their good names will not diminish the simple fact that they (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

While we wait for the Senate to finally finish debate on the two current judicial nominees before them, we should take a look at how it is progressing.

On the one hand, Red State is reporting here that Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., has finally gotten the fence post pulled out, and is now supporting Senate Majority Leader Frist’s effort to end judicial nominee filibustering. Here is the excerpt:

“Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., for weeks said he was undecided on whether to back a move by Frist, if it comes. Wednesday, he officially rejected signing on to a compromise.

“I believe that all of the president’s nominees deserve an up or down vote,” Hagel said, quoted by spokesman Mike Buttry. “The agreement that has been proposed calls for three of the president’s nominees not to get a vote. I could not agree to that. That is (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Bellicose is the word to describe what is currently happening on the Senate Floor with the pronouncements being made by Senate Democrats. Their desperate attempt to hold onto their tyrannical minority obstructionism is not only unconstitutional, it is wrong. The accusations being made against the Republican Majority, and Judicial Nominees Owen and Brown are no longer an attempt to debate the qualifications of the nominees, but a smear campaign against them personally, and each Republican Senator who supports the option to end nominee filibusters.

The whole idea of filibustering judicial nominees is a ploy to govern by minority rule in a nation where the majority is granted the constitutional right to govern. The same avenue of tyrannical minority rule is the chosen vehicle of Liberal Democrats through activist judges in the courts. Thus the sparks, outbursts, tantrums, and vehement blustering are spewing forth in the futile hope of hanging (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The “paper of record”, the New York Times, has pronounced a detonation of the “constitutional - nuclear - Byrd” option to take place tomorrow. In an article published today entitled, Senate Leaders Break Off Talks on Judicial Nominees, Carl Hulse states the following:

“Dr. Frist and Mr. Reid have been exploring similar approaches in proposals and counterproposals over a few weeks. Dr. Frist now intends to advance two nominees, two state Supreme Court justices, Priscilla R. Owen of Texas and Janice Rogers Brown of California, on Wednesday.”

CBS News also indicates the showdown is imminent. Their article is here.

Finally, Radio Blogger thinks it will happen tomorrow as well if the Times story above is true. See his comments here.

If the day of reckoning has finally come and you have not made your opinions known to your Senators. DUH! (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We are going to start off with an editorial published in the Wall Street Opinion Journal today entitled, How We Got Here: Why Republicans can’t let the judicial filibuster succeed. The writer’s main point is as follows:

“As for Republicans who want to preserve the option of filibustering a future nominee, it’d be just as wrong for them to do so. And Democrats willing to use the filibuster to block judges would not have any qualms about using the nuclear option themselves to kill a filibuster in the future. Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer believe in the “whatever it takes” school of politics.

This is at its core a political fight, and elections ought to mean something. Republicans have gained Senate seats in two consecutive elections in which judicial nominations were among the most important issues, including against the Senate Minority Leader. The one Democrat from (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

You have got to hear this speech made on the Senate Floor by Senator Robert Byrd, to bolster his support in maintaining the unconstitutional use of the filibuster against judicial nominees. The speech, which is basically a commentary on the Book of Esther from the Bible, contains one of the most radical applications ever set forth from this book of Holy Scripture.

Radio Blogger writes the following concerning this speech and Senator Byrd:

“The chief proponent to save the judicial filibuster, the filibuster that never existed before the year 2000, is Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He was once a Kleagle in the Ku Klux Klan. He once filibustered against the Civil Rights Act. He acted without any reservation four times to restrict the minority’s rights to filibuster by way of a rule interpretation through the Chair four times, exactly like Frist wants to do now once. He wants unlimited debate. He wants to be able to filibuster endlessly. Keep that in mind. Then listen to this:

byrdesther“

We hope the American public takes the opportunity to hear the kind of logic being used by Democrat Senators such as Senator Byrd. Once they really listen to speeches like this one, how can they refrain from supporting the movement to eliminate the filibuster on judicial nominees?

In an E-Mail sent out on Monday by Ken Mehlman, Chairman of the RNC, he asked for a petition to be signed. The petition was to ask all Senators to support Majority Leader Frist’s compromise. We did not sign the petition, because we don’t want a compromise.

Several articles in blogs, and newspapers have mentioned Senate Minority Harry Reid’s statement yesterday found here, which includes the following:

” This fight is not about seven radical nominees; it’s about clearing the way for a Supreme Court nominee who only needs 51 votes, instead of 60 votes. They want a Clarence Thomas, not a Sandra Day O’Connor or Anthony Kennedy or David Souter.”

That’s the first completely honest statement ever spoken from Senator Reid, and that is indeed the whole point. If we are to expect a constitutional up or down vote on a Supreme Court Nominee, the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Hugh Hewitt, has an excellent article today entitled, Old Media tries to cover the radicalism of Senate Democrats. That article does an excellent job of describing the “smoke and mirrors” of MSM, and their reasons for trying to provide a cover for their favorite political party. As for the reason to gloss over the Democrat obstructionism of the judicial nominees, he writes this:

“The reason the Post and others in old media refuse to tell this story in an objective way is because it throws a harsh light on their favored party. (See Patterico for one example of how the Los Angeles Times twists the facts.) But ignoring the history doesn’t change the history (Daly Thoughts has a lot of the history) and intoning that a Republican majority blocked 60 of Clinton’s judges in committee doesn’t change the history of the filibuster. (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

In an effort to compromise with the Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist made an offer on the floor of the Senate yesterday afternoon which in the opinions of all fair minded people should have been accepted with open arms.

Sadly, it was rejected, and the reasoning was almost incoherent. The Washington Times has Senate Minority Reid’s rejection in an article entitled, Democrats scorn Frist offer. Radio Blogger writes about What Senator Reid really said on the floor yesterday.

Senator Frist’s speech is here.

Powerline’s article entitled, Democrats Reject Compromise on Judges is an outstanding analysis of just how far Democrats will go to protect obstructionism. Here is an excerpt:

“Harry Reid’s response, as reported by the Washington Times, was childish and incoherent. Unable to deny the fairness or the logic or Frist’s offer, Reid (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We have an old saying out here in fly-over country which we call home. It is an old country boy saying, that has been tried but true. The title of our post is the saying “Stupid lasts Forever”. It wouldn’t be so tragic if it weren’t so true.

As we began to read this morning we discovered Senate Republicans falling apart on the judicial nominee filibuster issue. The Washington Times in a story by Charles Hurt entitled, Undecided Specter could doom GOP. It appears that Senator Arlen Specter is again falling off the “Constitutional Option” wagon. You can read the sad story using the link above.

EconRadical of Red State is saying, Let me be the first to call for Frist to resign. We don’t agree fully with EconRadical just yet, but if what he is reporting comes true, we will not (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

This is the week in which Senate Republicans have the opportunity to bring to an end the tyranny of the minorty concerning President Bush’s judicial nominees. The stage has been set. The players are in place. It also appears Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has the votes needed to put an end to this unconstitutional obstructionism.

The proof for the above events is provided by Senator Joe Biden who yesterday offered a compromise. Yesterday, Biden said on “This Week”:

“I think we should compromise and say to them that we’re willing to — of the seven judges — we’ll let a number of them go through, the two most extreme not go through and put off this vote [to end the filibuster].”

Powerline had this to say about such a compromise.

“The last thing the Republicans should do at this point is accept Biden’s deal. The (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

We awakened yesterday with new hope for Senate Republicans. We saw some progress in the filibuster wars, with Republican leadership at last starting to verbalize what everyone in the base was wanting to hear. But alas it was short lived as is evidenced by the postponement of nomination hearings for John Bolton as ambassador to the UN.

The United Nations has become so corrupt, scandal ridden, beneath comtempt, and irrelevant in recent years, it will take a tough minded individual as ambassador to help straighten it out. John Bolton is just such a person. Power Line has the details in their article entitled, Senate Slanderfest to Continue. Here is a portion:

“ANOTHER UPDATE: Rich Lowry got an email from a “well-informed source”:

A few tidbits…

1. The Senate went into a special recess so Bolton could (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Hugh Hewitt has been criticized for his stance concerning pulling the money out from under Republican Senators who don’t support breaking the filibuster on Judicial Nominees. See his article entitled, Convenient Red Lines, and Rules Made to be Broken, especially part 2. Here is the best part:

“But the Republican Party stands for two things above all others: The robust defense of the country and the rule of law. A “Republican” who deserts on either of these two issues is simply taking themselves out of the very, very big tent. Disagreement on every issue is possible, whether abortion, taxes, immigration, or defense appropriations, and details on legislation can divide Republicans of good faith over and over again. Individual senators can oppose individual judges –a vote against Judge Bork, though shocking to me, wasn’t a declaration against the rule of law for example.

But the radical use of the filibuster is a direct departure from the Constitution’s anticipation of a majority vote on presidential nominees, and the idea that preserving this illegitimate weapon of an out-of-control minority for future use by a minority GOP is doubly offensive. “Blue slips” and majoritarian power in the Committee are not assaults on the Constitution, but the sustained assertion of a 60-vote super-majority on the floor of the Senate is. Defend that practice and you are defending a shredding of the Constitution, and out of the GOP you should go.”

Confirm Them, has all the latest on the confirmation war.

Finally, Red State Rant, has so many good articles today, we didn’t have time to read all of them.

It would be impossible to describe the outrage we feel towards Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona after his statement on Hardball with Chris Matthews last night. The transcript can be found on Radio Blogger, here. This is Senator McCain’s statement:

“CM: But bottom line, would you vote with the people that are for what’s called the nuclear option, to get rid of the filibuster rule on judgeships?

JM: No, I will not.

CM: You’ll stick with the party then.

JM: Oh, I will vote against the nuclear option. Against the nuclear option.

CM: You will. So you’ll vote with the Democrats?

JM: Yes.”

It is clear from this statement, Senator McCain has finally made his decision to align himself once more with the Democrats and their unconstitutional use of the filibuster against judicial nominees.

It is our contention that Senator McCain feels more important when (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Hugh Hewitt is again encouraging the Senate Republicans to get on with the show in an article entitled, The Tipping (Away) Point. Hugh’s point is made quite clearly. If Senate Majority Leader Frist does not put down a schedule for the constitutional option and win, Republicans will lose in the 2006 election cycle. Here is a portion of his article:

“The political risks of continued dithering are outlined in my WeeklyStandard.com column, “Lead the Way.” Put bluntly: If the GOP loses or refuses the battle over the filibuster, it will lose the 2006 Senate elections, a set of contests it could actually win if the base thought there was any point to winning elections.”

This is another portion:

“So Senator Frist should lay out a schedule leading to the vote, and Senator Specter should march the blocked nominees through the Judiciary Committee, or the GOP as a whole should use the extraordinary procedure to bring them to the floor. Even if six or more GOP senators defect, at least the activists will know who they can trust and who they ought to punish. It is that simple.

You can encourage these steps by e-mailing any GOP senator or by calling their office at 202-225-3121.”

This is “the” most important political issue in two centuries. The Democrats have made it so by their unconstitutional filibustering of Judicial Nominees. It is well past time for Senate Republicans to lead in this situation, and exercise their constitutional duty.

Perhaps the Senate Republicans need to find a cure for their particular torment which we wrote about here.

If you want to keep up with what is going on with Democrat filibustering of judicial nominees, here are a few articles and links to help you out.

Powerline has an article entitled, That Was Then, This Is Now, catching Senator Leahy and Senator Schumer in a little Democratic double-speak.

Hugh Hewitt has a post entitled, Memo to Senator Warner: The Left wants to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. Is that serious enough for you?

Finally Confirm Them has four new articles today so far.

If you haven’t contacted your Senator, the Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. E-Mail contact information is here.

This volcano is heating up, and will erupt soon.

The questions for today are: Where do we stand as Republicans, and where are we headed?

As to the first question, Real Clear Politics, has a great commentary written by Michael Barone entitled, The Hardest Numbers. Mr. Barone makes a great case for just how strong we are as a party, and possible gains in the future. Here is a small portion:

“The implications? In the long run, Republicans are well positioned to increase their numbers in both the Senate and the House. Some Democrats hold seats because of personal popularity or moderate voting records. But when they retire, Republicans may well succeed them. In the short run, very few Republicans run great political risks by supporting Bush. Significantly more Democrats run great political risks by opposing him. Obstruction doesn’t work well for Democrats in Bush seats: Just ask former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle. (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Hugh Hewitt has a great article today entitled, Showdown in the Senate?. He gives a brief rundown on the facts concerning judicial nominee filibustering. Here is an excerpt:

“Now is the time to express to GOP senators your demand for a vote on the abuse of cloture. The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. Contact information for senators is found here. Among GOP senators said to be wavering are would-be presidential candidates Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John McCain of Arizona. Both are intriguing and viable candidates, but not if they vote against breaking the filibuster. Similarly, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is one of the few GOP “liberals” left and it is useful to the caucus to have such a diversity of views, but his re-election will be doomed if he votes against the ruling from the Chair. The NRSC, which (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Testicularitus. Never heard of it before? Probably because it isn’t a word yet. We just made it up today.

We can’t find any reference to this word in any online dictionary, nor can we find it in any internet search engine. So we are going to claim it as our own. This word is being coined today in much the same way as the word “Pajamahadeen” was coined by Jim Geraghty of National Review Online. Mr Geraghty used “Pajamahadeen” in response to the comment by Jonathan Klein, (former executive vice president of CBS News) who described bloggers in a debate on the O’Reilly Factor. The quote from the debate is printed in The Wall Street Opinion Journal in an article by John Fund, entitled, I’d Rather Be Blogging.

Jonathan Klein said, “You couldn’t have a starker contrast between the (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

David Limbaugh, in an article today entitled, Death Penalty Thrown Out Because Jury Discussed Scripture, which points to the CNN article entitled, Death sentence by jury that discussed Bible thrown out. Mr. Limbaugh’s comment makes a valid point. See below:

“Have you ever noticed the facility with which we ban the Bible and other things Christian? If this had been any other book — including, I dare say, holy books of other religions — I am very doubtful that we’d see a reversal in this case.”

The CNN story, makes this point:

“Jay Horowitz, a former assistant U.S. attorney and former University of Denver law professor, said the law bars jurors from considering evidence not presented at trial.

But he noted it was unreasonable to expect them to set aside moral standards when they step into a jury room, though there must be limits. (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

In a press release today, The Judicial Confirmation Network reveals in a survey conducted March 6-9, 2005 entitled, Overwhelming Majority Favor Senate Vote on Judges…, the message is finally getting out to the people. The results of the survey belies the rhetoric being put forth by Senate Democrats. The survey also indicates they will pay again at the polls in 2006 and 2008 if they continue on their self-destructive path.

Here are some excerpts:

“Highlights of the survey include:

* Eighty-two percent of voters agree that “if a nominee for any federal judgeship is well-qualified, he or she deserves an up or down vote on the floor of the Senate.
* By 78 to 12 percent, voters agree that Senators have a constitutional duty to vote on judicial nominations.
(Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The Internet is truly a wonderful medium for finding documents and facts. The problem sometimes occurs when people forget what they have said and done in the past. The exposure to that kind of scrutiny should make people think twice before stating something definitively, when an incident showing the same person with the opposite statement is only a click away. Such is the case with the US Senate and the players surrounding the current controversy over filibustering.

Real Clear Politics has posted the entire transcript of a speech given on the Senate floor yesterday by Senator Orrin Hatch, (R-UT) entitled End Judicial Nomination Filibusters which can be found here.

During the course of that speech Senator Hatch completely refutes Senator Byrd’s (D-WV) statements of last week concerning the tatics of the Senate Republicans in trying to end filibusters on judicial nominees. He does so by (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Radio Blogger has an excellent listing of quotes and articles summing up where the “Senate Battle Lines are Being Drawn”, here. He has some translations for some of the more colorful quotes as well.

The Wall Street Online Journal is advocating a name change to the “nuclear option,” being promoted by Senate Republicans in dealing with Democrat filibustering on judicial nominees. In the article entitled, The Byrd Option, the writer exposes the Senator for having used these same tactics himself several times. Here is just an excerpt:

“Changing Senate precedents by majority vote would be nothing new to Mr. Byrd, who used the tactic to change Senate precedents on filibusters and other delaying tactics when he was Majority Leader in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987. This history is detailed by Martin Gold and Dimple Gupta in the current issue of the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy.”

It is ironic for Senator Byrd, who likened this tactic to Hitler and the Nazi’s, only to have himself exposed for using the same procedure. One wonders what Senator Byrd’s procedure was called when he opted to use it.

The unsigned article suggests that we no longer call it the “nuclear option”, but hereafter call it the “Byrd option”.

The question you might be asking, is “Why hammer the US Senate in general, and the Senate Democrats in particular so hard?

A story used to be told of a young Minister who had just gotten called to his first church. He accepted and headed out to the little country church to preach his first sermon there. As he stood and began to preach, everyone was smiling, and so happy to have a Pastor again. When the sermon was over, the new Pastor stood at the back door while all the people filed by, shaking his hand and telling him what a wonderful sermon it was.

A week went by, and the young Minister drove back out to the little church to preach his second sermon. By the time he had finished, the congregation wasn’t smiling so much as the previous Sunday. As the people filed by after the sermon, (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

For those of you not aware yet, and you very well may not be, as the MSM is almost totally silent on this. Senator Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) took to the floor of the Senate yesterday in one of his “James Cagney” dying gasps of power, and denounced the strategy being threatened by the Senate Republicans as being the same as that used by Hitler in his rise to power in Nazi Germany.

The strategy being threatened by the Senate Republicans, known as the “Nuclear Option” is nothing more than restoring to constitutionality the 51 majority votes needed to confirm President Bush’s judicial nominees. There are rules which allow for a filibuster to be used to stop debate on given items, but the approval of judicial nominees by the President is not among those rules. The Democrats came up with the filibuster, because it is the only means they have (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

The title above is borrowed from another poor country boy from Missouri, Rev. Lou Barton. The PCB was privileged to listen to Bro. Lou, as we used to call him, preach that sermon in person a few years ago. He was using as his text the story of the plagues and the effect they had on Pharoah in ancient Egypt during the time of Moses. The particular verse in the story was, Ex 8:9-10 (BBE) quoted here:

9 And Moses said, I will let you have the honour of saying when I am to make prayer for you and your servants and your people, that the frogs may be sent away from you and your houses, and be only in the Nile.
10 And he said, By tomorrow. And he said, Let it be as you say: so that you may see that there is no other (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

What do you do when opportunity knocks? You get up and answer the door!!

There is a unique opportunity for all those concerned about the obstruction of President Bush’s judicial nominees to have their voices heard. The Judicial Confirmation Network Website has set up a petition and made it available for all who are interested to sign. The petition from their website is quoted here:

“A Petition Calling on United States Senators to End the Obstructionism,
Do Their Duty, and Vote Up or Down on Every Judicial Nominee

Whereas, the America people have a right to expect their Senators to do the job they were sent to the Senate to do;

Whereas, the Constitution clearly places responsibility on the Senate, “in its Advice and Consent” role to vote on the President’s nominees to the judiciary;

Whereas, basic fairness demands that every nominee - who (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Hugh Hewitt has a great section on the battle heating up again in the Senate, with lots of links to all the supporting articles and documents. I am including just a small excerpt here to pique your interest to follow this link, and read further.

Here is the excerpt from Hugh Hewitt’s blog:

Yesterday Was A Very Big Day: Specter, Schumer, and the Coming Showdown: Vox Blogoli 2.2: Does the Senate GOP Go McClellan or Grant if Harry Reid “Goes Gingrich?”

“The Democratic leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, has said that if the Republicans made good on their threat and ruled filibusters out of order, he would see to it that Senate business came to a halt.”

Reid’s threat to “go Gingrich” is the greatest gift a Democrat has given the Republicans in many year. Shutting down the government, Harry? Because you don’t want majority voting on (Read the rest of the story below the fold...)

Apparently the Republicans have a strategy to gain the upper hand in this years round of judicial appointments. Hugh Hewitt has an article in World Magazine which is pretty good as to why Senate Majority Leader Frist has laid the cards on the table. The other big announcement yesterday, see ( Hugh Hewitt’s Blog about half the way down the page, ) entitled The Next Supreme Court Justice. was the announcement in the New York Times (which you can actually read without having to log in) using this link, entitled New Round of Speculation About Rehnquist’s Farewell .

This is obviously yesterday’s news, but what the heck, this is PCB country! Besides, you won’t get to read about it in the local papers until next week.

It is imperative that we arm ourselves and be prepared to contact our legislators if in fact Justice Rehnquist actually does retire. We need to know the facts, the players, and the names, if we are to express our opinions intelligently in our representative form of government.