Demagogue

Nobody seems to know.

The other day during a floor speech, Sen Frist stated

“Right now, we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease, so I reserve the right to propose changes to Senate Rule 22 and do not acquiesce to carrying over all the rules from the last Congress.”

Rule 22 establishes the ground rules governing the filibuster.

Did Frist just unilaterally declare that all filibusters are now prohibited? Some seem to think so

“I think the best reading is all of Rule 22 doesn’t apply,” said Todd Gaziano, the director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. “I know you’ll get many Republicans and Democrats who disagree.”

Gaziano said that Democrats lost their chance to rebut Frist’s refusal to accept the rules of the previous Congress by not objecting to his statement on the floor. He said that Democrats now have a strong incentive to negotiate with Frist on crafting a new filibuster rule that exempts judicial nominees from stalling. Otherwise, Democrats would not have the right to filibuster legislation they oppose, such as Bush’s energy bill, he said.

“By their silence they have acquiesced in a way to Frist’s non-acquiescence,” he said. “I think that every senator wants a legislative filibuster. … I think both sides should come together to craft an acceptable legislative filibuster.”

But it seems that the Democrats still assume that Rule 22 is in place and if the GOP wants to change it, it'll require a vote of two-thirds of the Senate to do so (a number they will never get.) But under the “nuclear option” the GOP would simply determine that Rule 22 doesn’t apply to judicial nominations and uphold that interpretation on a simple majority vote. If they pull that stunt, the Democrats are threatening to shut down the Senate entirely.

So is Rule 22 in place or isn't it? Frist isn't saying.

But one lying douchebag is adding his voice

Manuel Miranda, who served as Frist’s top aide in charge of strategy on Bush’s judicial nominees, agreed with Gaziano’s interpretation.

“In my opinion, Rule 22 has not been acquiesced to and is not in effect,” Miranda said. “Frist specifically reserves on Rule 22, and we do not know what he is challenging or proposing until he further objects or does not. So in theory he has challenged all of Rule 22, but in context he clearly is objecting to its use regarding judicial nominations.”

Why in the hell is The Hill quoting Miranda? The man was fired from his job working for Frist for stealing internal Democratic memos and leaking them to the press and was, the last time I checked, under federal investigation. Don't they think that might be worth mentioning exactly why he is no longer Frist's top aide in charge of judicial strategy?