Conservatives Call for End to Filibuster; Highlights in the History of the Filibuster
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Detectives in Georgia say they have no reason to suspect foul play in the disappearance of two toddlers. 2-year-old Nicole Payne and her 3-year-old brother Jonah went missing from their Warrenton, Georgia, on Saturday, and the search for the children stopped temporarily last night because of searchers' fatigue, but it resumed earlier today. We'll keep you posted. The death toll now stands at almost 60 from Japan's worst rail accident in more than 40 years. A commuter train left the tracks and slammed into an apartment building outside Osaka this morning. More than 400 people were injured. The cause is under investigation. Democracy yes, but on Russia's terms. The country's president Vladimir Putin has taken heat from Western nations for backtracking on reforms. Today he insists his country is moving forward and remains committed to ideals of freedom. In his sixth annual state of the nation address, Putin says Russia must protect its own values, hold on to its heritage and find its own road to democracy.</s>MILES O'BRIEN, CNN ANCHOR: A showdown looks likely in the Senate over the filibuster, that Senate rule that allows unlimited debate unless 60 senators vote to stop the debate. Republican leaders threaten to seek a ruling ending filibusters against judicial nominees. Takes only a simple majority for that. And now religion gets thrown into the pot. CNN White House correspondent Suzanne Malveaux reports.</s>SUZANNE MALVEAUX, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Senate majority leader Bill Frist is at the center of the showdown between Republicans and Democrats over the president's judicial nominees. Frist is delivering a videotaped address to a religious telecast sponsored by the conservative Family Research Council, aimed at increasing public support for President Bush's judicial nominees. Excerpts from the speech show Frist supporting Republican efforts to limit filibusters.</s>SEN. BILL FRIST (R-TN), MAJORITY LEADER: My Democratic counterpart, Senator Reid, calls me "a radical Republican." I don't think it's radical to ask senators to vote.</s>MALVEAUX: Simulcast on Christian television and radio and to churches across the country, religious conservatives are launching an aggressive campaign to portray blocking Mr. Bush's nominees as an act against people of faith.</s>FRIST: As American citizens, we should not have to choose between believing and living by what is in this book and by serving the public, whether it be on the bench as a judge or whether it be in any other elected office.</s>MALVEAUX: Another religious group denounced conservatives' efforts to turn the filibuster in a religious litmus test. The key senators involved in the filibister debate called for their parties to compromise.</s>SEN. ARLEN SPECTER (R-PA), CHMN., JUDICIARY CMTE.: My Republican colleagues are ought not to vote for the nuclear option as a matter of party loyalty, and the Democrats ought not to be voting in lock step on filibusters as a matter of party loyalty.</s>SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: I agree with Senator Specter. We ought to find some way to back away from this because, I think the Senate would be hurt, but ultimately, the country would be hurt if you remove an area of checks and balances.</s>MALVEAUX (on camera): The competing rallies underscore the important role that religion plays in politics and the tug-of-the-war that is taking place across the country over the federal courts, which rule on such hot button issues as abortion and same-sex marriage. Suzanne Malveaux, CNN, Crawford, Texas.</s>O'BRIEN: So how has the Senate filibuster rule become a religious issue and should it be? We're sure to get some conflicting views from our next guests, public policy consultant Randy Tate, former executive director of the Christian Coalition.</s>RANDY TATE, TATE STRATEGIES: Hey, Miles.</s>O'BRIEN: And former Democratic Congressman Tom Andrews, national director of the Win Without War Coalition, there in our Washington bureau. Welcome to you both, gentleman.</s>TOM ANDREWS (D), WIN WITHOUT WAR: Thank you, Miles.</s>O'BRIEN: Randy, let's start with you. Religion and politics.</s>TATE: Sure.</s>O'BRIEN: They're not supposed to be discussed in polite conversation, right? Didn't your mama always tell you that? Don't discuss religion and politics. Now we've got them -- it seems that every issue we confront now boils down to religion somehow. How did we get to religion on filibusters?</s>TATE: Well, I think you can look back to what's happened over the last several years as Democrats, particularly liberal Democrats, in the United States Senate on the Senate Judiciary Committee began inserting and injecting religion into their questioning of potential nominees. You saw that with the nominee Mr. Pryor, you saw that with Mr. Pickering, you saw that with Mr. Holmes, where their questions were raised about them and their religious beliefs and...</s>O'BRIEN: So you basically are saying, they started it. But do you agree with Republicans who say that Democrats who support the filibuster of these nominees are against people of faith? Is that really a true statement?</s>TATE: No. I think what you've seen is a disturbing pattern that's developed over the last several years, where someone's deeply- held belief systems, and many times that's their religious beliefs, are now being used as an issue to have a filibuster and not even allow a vote on those individuals. You know, the constitution is very clear, Miles. There should not be a religious test on anyone holding public office or the public trust, but you see it being inserted and being raised in these issues and I think that's troubling.</s>O'BRIEN: Well, to the extent, however, that religion leads to morality and morality leads to decision-making, I suppose it is valid series of questions to ask. Tom Andrews, basically, what Randy is saying is Democrats started it by letting the religion genie out of the bottle, by asking those questions. What could do you say?</s>ANDREWS: Listen -- we're talking, Miles, first of all, let's put this in perspective. We're talking about 200 judicial nominees of the Bush administration have gone through under -- with Democratic support. We're talking about ten nominees out of 200, less than five percent. This is not a judicial crisis, as you've heard. And the fact is, is that holding up a nomination because you have grave concerns about the judicial temperament of someone, whether they're going to base their decision on the facts, on the law and of the judicial temperament that you want in these very powerful positions, is not an act against God as, of course, we're being told.</s>O'BRIEN: Tom, Tom, wait a minute. Isn't there a little more politics involved there than you're giving it credit? You're saying that in each and every one of these cases, these people do not have the temperament to be judges? Do you really believe that?</s>ANDREWS: No. Let's -- again, let's put this in perspective, Miles. I mean, when Bill Clinton, President Clinton, tried to get his nominees through, 60 of those nominations were stopped by the Republicans. Now, we're talking about ten being held up with the Democrats here in the system. Now, to take a filibuster system that has provided that checks and balances that we so need in this country, served us well since 1809 -- to throw that out the window is something that a majority of Americans oppose, a majority of Republicans oppose.</s>TATE: All right, and that...</s>ANDREWS: And this is what's at stake right now.</s>O'BRIEN: Yes, but let me ask a question about that, because there is another strategy that the Republicans could employ, instead of this so-called nuclear option, as Harry Reid calls it.</s>TATE: Or constitutional option.</s>O'BRIEN: Or whatever you want to call it. There are ways around it -- recess appointments -- there are ways that Republicans can maneuver to get these judges on the bench. Why don't they do that?</s>TATE: Well, I don't think you should have to try to maneuver to do what the constitution lays out.</s>O'BRIEN: Well, but politics is all about maneuvering. What are you talking about? It's always maneuvering, right? Compromise, maneuver.</s>TATE: Yes, but listen, listen on this. The constitution is clear that the president sends the nominees to the Senate, they have to advise and consent, and this is unprecedented. This has never happened in the history of the country, what has gone on in the last couple of years. At the end of the day, whether you think a nominee has a judicial temperament or not, there should a vote on it. As Bill Frist said, it's not a radical idea to ask senators who are duly elected to actually sit down, or go to the United States Senate, actually vote. I mean, to me that seems like a pretty reasonable idea. If you don't think...</s>O'BRIEN: Randy, you -- Randy, let me ask you a question, though. . Aren't you concerned, however, that in this fight, what is brewing right now is a significant backlash against the Republicans? Because ultimately, if they change the rules, the Democrats are going respond by just gumming up the works of the Senate. The Senate is basically going to shut down business, no real business gets done, Social Security reform, all that goes out the window. I have a feeling if all that happened, the American people might be a little disappointed.</s>TATE: Well I -- here's what I think's going to happen, Miles. I do think, as Senator McConnell said yesterday, the Republicans have the vote, and at some point, they're going to vote to change the rules. As you said, Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, said he's going to retaliate and shut the government down, shut the process down. I don't think that dog hunts, so to speak. I don't think that's going to work. I was in Congress in 1995 when the government was shut down. That's not a strategy for success. I don't think that is a strategy that's going to serve the Democrats well. Holding up funding for the troops in Iraq, stopping important legislation, I just don't think that's going to work.</s>O'BRIEN: Well, probably critical things like funding Iraq would be passed, of course, but Tom Andrews...</s>TATE: But I just don't think that -- I don't think that's going to sail, Miles.</s>O'BRIEN: Tom Andrews, if it does come to that, if it goes that far, let's assume that the Republicans vote, they -- because it only takes a simple majority, ironically, to end the filibuster rule and then the Democrats respond in kind by, you know, no more unanimous consent, let's say. Who's going to get blamed for that? The Democrats stand a good chance of getting blamed, don't they?</s>ANDREWS: I think's it's going to be a pox on everybody's house, Miles. You've got a rule that's been in place since 1809. Checks and balances, compromise. That's why that rule exists. People have got to sit down and work out their differences. If you eliminate that rule, you take that system of checks and balances and you throw it out the window, and that seriously compromises the system we have in place. Look, the Republicans control the White, they control the House of Representatives, they control the Senate, they control seven of the nine Supreme Court -- members of the Supreme Court. Now, that's an awful lot of power. You can't get 100 percent of what you want 100 percent of the time under the current system. So what the republicans are saying, we want 100 percent of what we want 100 percent of the time, and that's something that hasn't been done since 1809.</s>O'BRIEN: All right, Randy.</s>O'BRIEN: Final thought here, final thought. I just want to just do one final thought in here. Let's talk about Bill Frist and that videotape. All of this kind of being played out in churches. Is that appropriate?</s>TATE: I think it's a great thing. In America, where people of faith -- I think Tom and I could agree on this -- to be engaged in a political process, that table we call democracy, to be able to come on</s>CNN. O'BRIEN: But, is that what we go to church for? Is that what we really go to church for?</s>TATE: Well, we go to church, obviously, for a deeply held moral beliefs and religious thoughts. But I also believe that it is a welcome opportunity to learn more about the important issues of the day. And, if you have the Senate majority leader have a chance to address 60 million households, which was available to him yesterday, on an important issue, before the American people, I think that's important that the majority leader be able to educate, and engage, those people.</s>O'BRIEN: Tom Andrews -- it's not why I go church. Tom Andrews, what do you think?</s>ANDREWS: To say that support for the constitutional system of checks and balances, to support this filibuster rule is an act against God and people...</s>TATE: Nobody said that.</s>ANDREWS: ...is so far over the top, Miles, that it's not even on the planet. I think most people -- in fact, polls are showing that people are frustrated with this, they're opposed to the change in this rule, and I frankly think that, as George Will has said, as former Senator Bob Dole has said, this is very dangerous for Republicans. It could backfire on them -- I think it's backfiring on them right now. This thin reed of checks and balances that we have remaining in this system, this filibuster rule, serves the country well. It has since 1809, and to say that you want to support this is not a...</s>O'BRIEN: You got to end it there, guys.</s>O'BRIEN: I apologize. Got to end it.</s>ANDREWS: The time elapsed on our debate. Obviously, we didn't settle this one, did we?</s>TATE: Not today.</s>O'BRIEN: Randy Tate...</s>TATE: Soon, I hope.</s>O'BRIEN: Randy Tate and Tom Andrews, come back any time. We appreciate it.</s>TATE: You bet. Thank you.</s>ANDREWS: Thank you, Miles.</s>PHILLIPS: Well, here's a bit of filibuster trivia for you: the name comes from a Dutch word meaning "pirate." Not exactly a positive connotation. And frustration over filibusters goes a long way back. Of course, here's CNN's Bruce Morton with a look.</s>BRUCE MORTON, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Originally, the Senate had unlimited debate, but in 1917, after a handful of Senators successfully filibustered a bill to arm U.S. merchant ships, President Wilson charged that "a little group of willful men have rendered the great government of the United States helpless and contemptible." The Senate changed its rules: if two-thirds voted to cut off debate -- voting for cloture, it's called -- debate ended. The Senate used the rule to end the filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I. In 1975, the Senate changed the number needed to invoke cloture down to 60. Filibusters through the years, Jimmy Stewart was the good-guy filibusterer in the movie "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."</s>JIMMY STEWART, ACTOR "MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON": No matter what his race, color or creed.</s>MORTON: Huey Long of Louisiana did the gourmet version in 1935, offering recipes for pot liquor -- that's what you cook the greens in -- and fried oysters. Longest by an individual, South Carolina's Strom Thurmond, in 1957: 24 hours and 18 minutes. But the big one was the filibuster against the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which ended segregation in the South. Relays of Southerners spoke for 57 days, Senators sleeping in shifts, stumbling in from midnight quorum calls. But, in the end, it passed and changed America. Filibusters against judicial nominees? Yes. Republicans, when Lyndon Johnson tried to name Justice Abe Ford (ph) as chief justice in 1968. A cloture vote failed, Johnson withdrew the nomination. Majorities hate filibusters, minorities don't.</s>SEN. JESSE HELMS (R), NORTH CAROLINA: It's not a filibuster when do you it, it's a filibuster when the other fella does it.</s>MORTON: In the House, majority rules unimpeded, debate always limited, up and down votes when the majority wants them. The Senate was meant to be more deliberative. George Washington called it the saucer, where passion is cooled. If the filibuster is abolished, will that change?</s>DAVID BRODER, "WASHINGTON POST": The right of unlimited debate, though it's rarely been invoked, has been one of the distinguishing features of the Senate and it's one of the characteristics that sets it apart from the House of Representatives.</s>MORTON: Will they get rid of it? A test could come very soon. Bruce Morton, CNN, Washington.</s>O'BRIEN: Well, everyone, especially the staff of LIVE FROM... love a good animal story, and no one love as good animal story more than the kids here, right here at -- well, this one right here especially, Kyra. You just sort of got hint of what...</s>PHILLIPS: Wait a minute, we should go back to that shot. We just -- we got to...</s>O'BRIEN: Well, that's all you need to know. Breast -- yes, breast feeding tigers. That's all. That's all I'm going to say!</s>PHILLIPS: Oh, oh.</s>O'BRIEN: Ah, anyway, let's...</s>PHILLIPS: There's just something uncomfortable about that, Miles. I don't know.</s>O'BRIEN: We need to go to Sibila right now.</s>PHILLIPS: Yes. Ouch.</s>SIBILA VARGAS, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Yes, I don't know how I'm going to follow that one, but let's try. A British pop star is about to walk down the aisle, and is reality TV about to get touched by an angel? Are you curious? I hope so. I'll explain when LIVE FROM... continues.