Republicans change rules

11-18-2004, 12:39 PM

As this board is dominated by Republicans I didn't expect to see discussion of this topic.

[quote][b]Charges no longer a bar to leadership
By Charles Babington and Helen Dewar, Washington Post | November 18, 2004

WASHINGTON -- Emboldened by their election successes, House Republicans changed their rules yesterday to allow majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas to keep his post even if a grand jury indicts him.

At the same time, Senate GOP leaders continued to weigh changing longstanding rules that govern filibusters to prevent Democrats from blocking some of President Bush's judicial nominees.

Republicans were less assertive a month ago, when they held a tiny Senate majority and their House members were more sensitive to criticisms of ethical lapses on Capitol Hill. But basking in the Nov. 2 election that gave Bush a second term and expanded the party's House and Senate majorities, Republican leaders are showing greater willingness to brush past Democratic objections, parliamentary traditions, and watchdog groups' denunciations to advance their agenda.

House Republicans, in an unrecorded voice vote behind closed doors, changed a 1993 party rule that required leaders who are indicted to step aside. Under the revised rule, an indicted leader can keep his or her post while the Republican Steering Committee, which is controlled by party leaders, decides whether to recommend any action by the full caucus.

Republicans made clear they would not act if they believe their leaders are targeted by grand juries or prosecutors who are motivated by politics, which is the charge DeLay and his allies repeatedly have leveled at a grand jury based in Austin. The grand jury has indicted three of DeLay's political associates in connection with fund-raising activities for a political action committee closely linked to DeLay.

Democrats and ethics watchdog groups denounced the House GOP action. ''Today, Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said the House minority whip, Steny Hoyer of Maryland.

Minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California said: ''Republicans have reached a new low. It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders."

DeLay told reporters yesterday that he doesn't expect to be indicted but that he supported the rule change. Without it, he said, Democrats could ''have a political hack decide who our leadership is" by engineering a baseless indictment. Democrats ''announced years ago that they were going to engage in the politics of personal destruction, and had me as a target," he said.

Unlike a proposal filed Tuesday, the rule change applies equally to state and federal indictments.

DeLay said the charges being investigated in Austin by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat, ''are frivolous" and ''have no substance." Earle, who says partisanship plays no role in his investigation, said he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans during his long career.

Republicans said neither DeLay nor Speaker Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, addressed the caucus meeting, which lasted several hours. Hastert later said the rule change resulted in a ''fair and equitable" standard.

When House Republicans adopted the 1993 rule requiring indicted leaders to step aside, they were highlighting ethical problems dogging prominent Democrats. Among them were Dan Rostenkowski, an Illinois Democrat who chaired the Ways and Means Committee and who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud.

Meanwhile in the Senate, where the GOP will hold 55 of the 100 seats in January, Republican leaders have sharpened their talk of changing rules that govern the filibuster, a tactic that both parties have used over the years to block proposals that cannot muster the 60 votes needed to shut off debate. Republicans are angry that Democrats have used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's judicial nominees.

Changes to Senate rules usually require up to 67 votes if they are especially controversial. But there is one approach -- called the ''nuclear option" because of its explosive potential -- that would require only 51 votes.

Under this rarely used procedure, the Senate's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Dick Cheney, would find that a super-majority to end filibusters is unconstitutional for judicial nominees. Democrats would undoubtedly challenge this ruling. But it takes only a simple majority -- or 51 votes from the Senate GOP's new 55-vote majority -- to sustain a ruling of the chair.[/b][/quote]

Section109Row15 · 11-18-2004, 01:06 PM

Don't worry they will change it back once it suites them.

11-18-2004, 01:12 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 01:06 PM
[b] Don't worry they will change it back once it suites them. [/b][/quote]
That just about sums it up!

edcopp · 11-18-2004, 01:12 PM

When we went on vacation last year, we got upgraded to a suit. It was awesome. ;)

chiefst2000 · 11-18-2004, 01:38 PM

I just find it comical when liberals go after Republicans on morality issues.

The rule change regarding indictments of party leaders in an internal party rule. It has nothing to do with Senate rules. It makes sense to not have such a far reaching rule on the party books because it opens the door for politicaly motivated indictments.

The Republicans party has always been quick to step down when any sort of controversy hist one of their candidates. Jack Ryan of Illinois is a good recent example.

As for the second part regarding Democrat fillibusters of judicial nominees... the article speaks for itself. The democRats have fillibustered 10 judicial nominees already. They've been taking advantage of the system as it is set up. The Republicans are seeking to give them a taste of their own medicine.

Let me clarify somthing for you. There is a reason that the house and Senate remain Republican majorities. The ideas being put forth be the liberals just don't hold water. It is sad because I for one prefer comprimise and moderation in politics. The loony left has mde that very difficult.

jets5ever · 11-18-2004, 01:42 PM

So, Gainzo - the GOP is changing an internal, party rule and this, somehow, is a problem for you? Are you a fan of frivolous lawsuits? It's a great strategy by the Dems - pursue a frivolous lawsuit against DeLay, then when the GOP doesn't immediately cower and have him step aside, accuse the GOP of selling their souls for power. If the suit against DeLay really IS fivolous, would that change your opinion about the GOP changing this rule? To me, that is the substantive issue. Do you acknolwegde that leaving the rule unchanged would essentially be an invitation to Dems to pursue frivolous lawsuits for political gain??In any event, a rule change may be in order anyway. We all know this country is over-flowing with frivolous lawsuits...any jerk-a$$ can file one. Just being indicted should not be the sole criterion excluding an official from a leadership post.

You honestly think the GOP is evil and Democrats are good? You literally see the world in those simple terms? Grow up....

11-18-2004, 02:04 PM

I just found it a farce that the Republicans enacted this rule in '93 when there were Dems who were in trouble, but when one of their own is in the same situation they get rid of the rule. Funny how that works isn't it?

jets5ever · 11-18-2004, 02:46 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Gainzo[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 02:04 PM
[b] I just found it a farce that the Republicans enacted this rule in '93 when there were Dems who were in trouble, but when one of their own is in the same situation they get rid of the rule. Funny how that works isn't it? [/b][/quote]
No, it's logical. Both parties make empty gestures and bloviate about claming the moral high ground over the opposition party. This type of "righteousness" is often amplified after one party loses an election. It is often desirable for the losing party to attribute the success of the majority party to under-handed tricks or a lack of ethics. Politics as usual.

Spirit of Weeb · 11-18-2004, 04:10 PM

The king of the hill makes the rules. That's what happens when you kick a$$ in an election.

You dems thank your people like john "shoot the enemy in the back and come home and dump on your fellow servicemen and country" kerry, michael moore, hilliary clinton, al sharpton, jesse jackson, tom daschle, nancy pelosi, george soros, whoopi goldberg, ted kennedy, john edwards, howard dean, al gore and on and on...

jetsfaninCO · 11-18-2004, 04:41 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 04:10 PM
[b] The king of the hill makes the rules. That's what happens when you kick a$$ in an election.

You dems thank your people like john "shoot the enemy in the back and come home and dump on your fellow servicemen and country" kerry, michael moore, hilliary clinton, al sharpton, jesse jackson, tom daschle, nancy pelosi, george soros, whoopi goldberg, ted kennedy, john edwards, howard dean, al gore and on and on... [/b][/quote]
Amen,

It is so funny to watch all the libs flop around like dying fish. They are just so pissed off that they are losers.

hahahah.

Come Back to NY · 11-18-2004, 06:32 PM

[quote][i]Originally posted by jetsfaninCO[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 04:41 PM
[b] Amen,

It is so funny to watch all the libs flop around like dying fish. They are just so pissed off that they are losers.

hahahah. [/b][/quote]
[img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041118/capt.arrf11511181901.clinton_library_arrf115.jpg[/img]

Brooklyn Jet · 11-19-2004, 10:33 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Gainzo[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 03:04 PM
[b] I just found it a farce that the Republicans enacted this rule in '93 when there were Dems who were in trouble, but when one of their own is in the same situation they get rid of the rule. Funny how that works isn't it? [/b][/quote]
Actually, in 93, didnt the Republicans enact the rule in a bi-partisan fashion...Joseph McDade, a Republican, was being looked at as well by prosecutors back then. A decade ago, it was done because it was the right thing to do. While "eliminating frivolous lawsuits" is a good reason to eliminate the rule, it can also be argued that politicians in both parties are susceptable, due to the inherent power of their positions, to break the law. While its rare, shouldn't there be some measure in place to address that?

11-19-2004, 10:46 AM

[quote][i]Originally posted by Brooklyn Jet+Nov 19 2004, 10:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Brooklyn Jet @ Nov 19 2004, 10:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Gainzo[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 03:04 PM
[b] I just found it a farce that the Republicans enacted this rule in '93 when there were Dems who were in trouble, but when one of their own is in the same situation they get rid of the rule. Funny how that works isn't it? [/b][/quote]
Actually, in 93, didnt the Republicans enact the rule in a bi-partisan fashion...Joseph McDade, a Republican, was being looked at as well by prosecutors back then. A decade ago, it was done because it was the right thing to do. While "eliminating frivolous lawsuits" is a good reason to eliminate the rule, it can also be argued that politicians in both parties are susceptable, due to the inherent power of their positions, to break the law. While its rare, shouldn't there be some measure in place to address that? [/b][/quote]
I'm actually not sure if this was done in a bi-patrisan fashion. The rule was enacted as an internal party rule which at the time was meant to make the dems look bad and to say, "hey look at us we just enacted a rule because we have higher morals."

Then when the shoe is on the other foot they quickly change the rule. Politics as usual.

But as most of you noted when in power you can do whatever you like!

11-18-2004, 12:39 PM	#1
Kangaroo Fcker Edit Status* Guest Posts: n/a	As this board is dominated by Republicans I didn't expect to see discussion of this topic. [quote][b]Charges no longer a bar to leadership By Charles Babington and Helen Dewar, Washington Post \| November 18, 2004 WASHINGTON -- Emboldened by their election successes, House Republicans changed their rules yesterday to allow majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas to keep his post even if a grand jury indicts him. At the same time, Senate GOP leaders continued to weigh changing longstanding rules that govern filibusters to prevent Democrats from blocking some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Republicans were less assertive a month ago, when they held a tiny Senate majority and their House members were more sensitive to criticisms of ethical lapses on Capitol Hill. But basking in the Nov. 2 election that gave Bush a second term and expanded the party's House and Senate majorities, Republican leaders are showing greater willingness to brush past Democratic objections, parliamentary traditions, and watchdog groups' denunciations to advance their agenda. House Republicans, in an unrecorded voice vote behind closed doors, changed a 1993 party rule that required leaders who are indicted to step aside. Under the revised rule, an indicted leader can keep his or her post while the Republican Steering Committee, which is controlled by party leaders, decides whether to recommend any action by the full caucus. Republicans made clear they would not act if they believe their leaders are targeted by grand juries or prosecutors who are motivated by politics, which is the charge DeLay and his allies repeatedly have leveled at a grand jury based in Austin. The grand jury has indicted three of DeLay's political associates in connection with fund-raising activities for a political action committee closely linked to DeLay. Democrats and ethics watchdog groups denounced the House GOP action. ''Today, Republicans sold their collective soul to maintain their grip on power," said the House minority whip, Steny Hoyer of Maryland. Minority leader Nancy Pelosi of California said: ''Republicans have reached a new low. It is absolutely mind-boggling that as their first order of business following the elections, House Republicans have lowered the ethical standards for their leaders." DeLay told reporters yesterday that he doesn't expect to be indicted but that he supported the rule change. Without it, he said, Democrats could ''have a political hack decide who our leadership is" by engineering a baseless indictment. Democrats ''announced years ago that they were going to engage in the politics of personal destruction, and had me as a target," he said. Unlike a proposal filed Tuesday, the rule change applies equally to state and federal indictments. DeLay said the charges being investigated in Austin by Travis County District Attorney Ronnie Earle, an elected Democrat, ''are frivolous" and ''have no substance." Earle, who says partisanship plays no role in his investigation, said he has prosecuted more Democrats than Republicans during his long career. Republicans said neither DeLay nor Speaker Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, addressed the caucus meeting, which lasted several hours. Hastert later said the rule change resulted in a ''fair and equitable" standard. When House Republicans adopted the 1993 rule requiring indicted leaders to step aside, they were highlighting ethical problems dogging prominent Democrats. Among them were Dan Rostenkowski, an Illinois Democrat who chaired the Ways and Means Committee and who eventually pleaded guilty to mail fraud. Meanwhile in the Senate, where the GOP will hold 55 of the 100 seats in January, Republican leaders have sharpened their talk of changing rules that govern the filibuster, a tactic that both parties have used over the years to block proposals that cannot muster the 60 votes needed to shut off debate. Republicans are angry that Democrats have used the filibuster to block 10 of Bush's judicial nominees. Changes to Senate rules usually require up to 67 votes if they are especially controversial. But there is one approach -- called the ''nuclear option" because of its explosive potential -- that would require only 51 votes. Under this rarely used procedure, the Senate's presiding officer, presumably Vice President Dick Cheney, would find that a super-majority to end filibusters is unconstitutional for judicial nominees. Democrats would undoubtedly challenge this ruling. But it takes only a simple majority -- or 51 votes from the Senate GOP's new 55-vote majority -- to sustain a ruling of the chair.[/b][/quote]

11-18-2004, 01:06 PM	#2
Section109Row15 Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Washington, D.C. Posts: 3,406	Don't worry they will change it back once it suites them.

11-18-2004, 01:12 PM	#3
Kangaroo Fcker Edit Status* Guest Posts: n/a	[quote][i]Originally posted by Section109Row15[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 01:06 PM [b] Don't worry they will change it back once it suites them. [/b][/quote] That just about sums it up!

11-18-2004, 01:12 PM	#4
edcopp Sucking me into caring for the 35th straight year... Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Stroudsburg, PA Posts: 3,454	When we went on vacation last year, we got upgraded to a suit. It was awesome. ;)

11-18-2004, 01:38 PM	#5
chiefst2000 Champion of Common Sense All Pro Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 5,820	I just find it comical when liberals go after Republicans on morality issues. The rule change regarding indictments of party leaders in an internal party rule. It has nothing to do with Senate rules. It makes sense to not have such a far reaching rule on the party books because it opens the door for politicaly motivated indictments. The Republicans party has always been quick to step down when any sort of controversy hist one of their candidates. Jack Ryan of Illinois is a good recent example. As for the second part regarding Democrat fillibusters of judicial nominees... the article speaks for itself. The democRats have fillibustered 10 judicial nominees already. They've been taking advantage of the system as it is set up. The Republicans are seeking to give them a taste of their own medicine. Let me clarify somthing for you. There is a reason that the house and Senate remain Republican majorities. The ideas being put forth be the liberals just don't hold water. It is sad because I for one prefer comprimise and moderation in politics. The loony left has mde that very difficult.

11-18-2004, 01:42 PM	#6
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	So, Gainzo - the GOP is changing an internal, party rule and this, somehow, is a problem for you? Are you a fan of frivolous lawsuits? It's a great strategy by the Dems - pursue a frivolous lawsuit against DeLay, then when the GOP doesn't immediately cower and have him step aside, accuse the GOP of selling their souls for power. If the suit against DeLay really IS fivolous, would that change your opinion about the GOP changing this rule? To me, that is the substantive issue. Do you acknolwegde that leaving the rule unchanged would essentially be an invitation to Dems to pursue frivolous lawsuits for political gain??In any event, a rule change may be in order anyway. We all know this country is over-flowing with frivolous lawsuits...any jerk-a$$ can file one. Just being indicted should not be the sole criterion excluding an official from a leadership post. You honestly think the GOP is evil and Democrats are good? You literally see the world in those simple terms? Grow up....

11-18-2004, 02:04 PM	#7
Kangaroo Fcker Edit Status* Guest Posts: n/a	I just found it a farce that the Republicans enacted this rule in '93 when there were Dems who were in trouble, but when one of their own is in the same situation they get rid of the rule. Funny how that works isn't it?

11-18-2004, 02:46 PM	#8
jets5ever Hall Of Fame Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Boston Posts: 11,692	[quote][i]Originally posted by Gainzo[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 02:04 PM [b] I just found it a farce that the Republicans enacted this rule in '93 when there were Dems who were in trouble, but when one of their own is in the same situation they get rid of the rule. Funny how that works isn't it? [/b][/quote] No, it's logical. Both parties make empty gestures and bloviate about claming the moral high ground over the opposition party. This type of "righteousness" is often amplified after one party loses an election. It is often desirable for the losing party to attribute the success of the majority party to under-handed tricks or a lack of ethics. Politics as usual.

11-18-2004, 04:10 PM	#9
Spirit of Weeb All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 2,393	The king of the hill makes the rules. That's what happens when you kick a$$ in an election. You dems thank your people like john "shoot the enemy in the back and come home and dump on your fellow servicemen and country" kerry, michael moore, hilliary clinton, al sharpton, jesse jackson, tom daschle, nancy pelosi, george soros, whoopi goldberg, ted kennedy, john edwards, howard dean, al gore and on and on...

11-18-2004, 04:41 PM	#10
jetsfaninCO All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 1,965	[quote][i]Originally posted by Spirit of Weeb[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 04:10 PM [b] The king of the hill makes the rules. That's what happens when you kick a$$ in an election. You dems thank your people like john "shoot the enemy in the back and come home and dump on your fellow servicemen and country" kerry, michael moore, hilliary clinton, al sharpton, jesse jackson, tom daschle, nancy pelosi, george soros, whoopi goldberg, ted kennedy, john edwards, howard dean, al gore and on and on... [/b][/quote] Amen, It is so funny to watch all the libs flop around like dying fish. They are just so pissed off that they are losers. hahahah.

11-18-2004, 06:32 PM	#11
Come Back to NY Making lotsa $$$ off obama's stupidity... Jets Insider VIP JetsInsider.com Legend Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 31,407	[quote][i]Originally posted by jetsfaninCO[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 04:41 PM [b] Amen, It is so funny to watch all the libs flop around like dying fish. They are just so pissed off that they are losers. hahahah. [/b][/quote] [img]http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20041118/capt.arrf11511181901.clinton_library_arrf115.jpg[/img]

11-19-2004, 10:33 AM	#12
Brooklyn Jet Ever been arrested? All Pro Join Date: May 2003 Posts: 5,265	[quote][i]Originally posted by Gainzo[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 03:04 PM [b] I just found it a farce that the Republicans enacted this rule in '93 when there were Dems who were in trouble, but when one of their own is in the same situation they get rid of the rule. Funny how that works isn't it? [/b][/quote] Actually, in 93, didnt the Republicans enact the rule in a bi-partisan fashion...Joseph McDade, a Republican, was being looked at as well by prosecutors back then. A decade ago, it was done because it was the right thing to do. While "eliminating frivolous lawsuits" is a good reason to eliminate the rule, it can also be argued that politicians in both parties are susceptable, due to the inherent power of their positions, to break the law. While its rare, shouldn't there be some measure in place to address that?

11-19-2004, 10:46 AM	#13
Kangaroo Fcker Edit Status* Guest Posts: n/a	[quote][i]Originally posted by Brooklyn Jet+Nov 19 2004, 10:33 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>[b]QUOTE[/b] (Brooklyn Jet @ Nov 19 2004, 10:33 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Gainzo[/i]@Nov 18 2004, 03:04 PM [b] I just found it a farce that the Republicans enacted this rule in '93 when there were Dems who were in trouble, but when one of their own is in the same situation they get rid of the rule. Funny how that works isn't it? [/b][/quote] Actually, in 93, didnt the Republicans enact the rule in a bi-partisan fashion...Joseph McDade, a Republican, was being looked at as well by prosecutors back then. A decade ago, it was done because it was the right thing to do. While "eliminating frivolous lawsuits" is a good reason to eliminate the rule, it can also be argued that politicians in both parties are susceptable, due to the inherent power of their positions, to break the law. While its rare, shouldn't there be some measure in place to address that? [/b][/quote] I'm actually not sure if this was done in a bi-patrisan fashion. The rule was enacted as an internal party rule which at the time was meant to make the dems look bad and to say, "hey look at us we just enacted a rule because we have higher morals." Then when the shoe is on the other foot they quickly change the rule. Politics as usual. But as most of you noted when in power you can do whatever you like!