Which Republicans are against the Nuclear Option

I've have Collins, Snowe (bothy Maine) and McCain (AZ) against the Republican nuclear option with Hagel (NE), Chafee (RI), Graham (SC), Warner (VA), and Specter (PA) on the fence on not "on board with Frist"  

Also Nelson (FL) is considered a potential  bailer for the Democrats.

Does anyone have a better head count or a more certain one?



Display:


Well, here's the Justice Sunday list (none / 0)

The following is a list the Family Research Council, the nuts that brought you 'Justice Sunday,' has posted on its website urging their nuts to call and support the Nuclear Option.

Well, let's do just the opposite.  Call everyone on this list and tell then to OPPOSE the Nuclear Option.

Alaska - Sen. Murkowski - 202-224-6665
Arizona - Sen. McCain - 202-224-2235
Arkansas - Sen. Pryor - 202-224-2353
Arkansas - Sen. Lincoln - 202-224-4843
Colorado - Sen. Salazar - 202-224-5852
Connecticut - Sen. Lieberman - 202-224-4041
Florida - Sen. Nelson - 202-224-5274
Indiana - Sen. Lugar -202-224-4814
Indiana - Sen. Bayh - 202-224-5623
Louisiana - Sen. Landrieu - 202-224-5824
Maine - Sen. Collins - 202-224-2523
Maine - Sen. Snowe - 202-224-5344
Nebraska - Sen. Hagel - 202-224-4224
Nebraska - Sen. Nelson - 202-224-6551
Nevada - Sen. Reid - 202-224-3542
New Hampshire - Sen. Sununu - 202-224-2841
North Dakota - Sen. Dorgan - 202-224-2551
North Dakota - Sen. Conrad - 202-224-2043
Ohio - Sen. Dewine - 202-224-2315
Oregon - Sen. Smith - 202-224-3753
Rhode Island - Sen. Chafee - 202-224-2921

Visit my blog Ohio Watch, and visit jScoop.

by The Ticked Off Ohioan on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 10:58:25 AM EST

A good rundown on Reid's compromise offer (none / 0)

From an L.A. times article, Republicans Reject Democrats' Offer to Settle Judicial Dispute: The deal would allow votes on three nominees. But the GOP says it's focusing on future picks.

Nothing specifically about Republicans, but I believe your list is quite accurate. This article covers the nature of the compromise Reid offered:

But Republicans said they were less concerned about current nominees than they were about future ones, especially with an anticipated Supreme Court vacancy this summer.

"Don't just focus on the past," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said. "All judicial and Supreme Court nominees deserve a fair up-or-down vote."

Democrats said they would accept no agreement that restricted future use of the filibuster, leaving the two sides at an impasse.

"It would be a fundamental part of any compromise that the 'nuclear option' be off the table," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)

The filibuster rule change has been described as the "nuclear option" because of the political discord it could spark.

Neither side publicly discussed details of the Democrats' offer. However, a senior Democratic aide, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the discussions, said Reid offered to allow votes on three of seven nominations -- two judges from Michigan and a third judicial nominee of Republicans' choice.

In return, the aide said, Reid asked for a Republican commitment not to change the filibuster rules, along with promises to reinstate judiciary committee procedures that would permit senators to block nominations during the committee vetting process. Reid also asked that a bipartisan task force of retired senators be asked to make proposals on improving the judicial confirmation process.

"I believe my proposal strikes the right balance," Reid said in remarks on the Senate floor. "It protects our democracy and the independence of our federal courts, it protects the American people and lets us do their business, and it breaks a partisan stalemate that is unnecessary and divisive."

And this very encouraging statement from Reid:

Reid denounced Rove's comments as an insistence that the Senate become a rubber stamp for the president by providing a "100% confirmation rate."

"Republican leaders don't want compromise," Reid said. "Republican leaders don't want Democrats to have a voice in this debate. Republican leaders don't want any check on their quest for absolute power. They want total victory."

And these very strange poll results. I am very skeptical of the internal Republican polls.

Some polls have suggested that the American public is wary about the GOP's potential push on federal judges. An ABC/Washington Post survey published Tuesday suggested that two-thirds of Americans opposed Republican plans to change the filibuster rule and 26% supported it.

In response, the Republican National Committee released results of internal polls that it said showed that 81% of Americans believed Democrats should not block confirmation votes for judges even if they didn't agree with them


by Gary Boatwright on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST

Specter would surprise me (none / 0)

Given Specter's love for rules and tradition, I'd be surprised if he were with Frist on this one, especially given he has no plans to run again ever.

If Specter is onboard, then the GOP deserves all the credit in the world for party discipline.  

Warner strikes me as being a very similar case.  Obviously, Hagel and Chaffee are full of surprises.

by jcjcjc on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 01:04:37 PM EST

A personal note re John Warner (none / 0)

With the Bork nomination already doomed in 1987, every Senator had taken a position and made a floor vote on Bork.  The head count just prior to the vote was 57 against and 42 for Bork.  Warner was the only uncommitted member of the Senate.

After voting Bork down, Warner took the floor and explained that he didn't think Bork would make a good SC Justice because he never considered the results and realities of his decisions.  Warner, it seemed, expected judges to look outside of the strict legal rules and consider what happens after you decide something (he clerked for a judge apparantly).  

He may explain not supporting changing the filibuster rule as being Traditionalist, but the reality is I think that judge who are clinical and ideological offend his sensibilities.

by kmwray on Wed Apr 27, 2005 at 03:17:56 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.