VIDEO: Byrd Takes Frist To School
Today on the floor of the Senate, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) taught Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) a lesson in constitutional law. At Byrd’s insistence, Frist was forced to admit that the so-called “right” to an up-or-down vote — what Frist calls the “Constitutional Option” — is “not in the Constitution.” Watch it:
On Fox News this Sunday, Frist argued the opposite:
I think it would be against the intent of the founding fathers and our Constitution to deny Sam Alito an up or down vote on the floor of the United States Senate.
Full transcript below:
BYRD: And the Constitution says that the Senate has the power of advice and consent. It doesn’t say how that consent would be measured. It doesn’t say it has to be an up or down. Nothing in the history, nothing in the Constitution says that. Yes, you can point that out in the Constitution to me, where it says a nominee shall have the right to an up or down vote. Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me?
FRIST: If the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would let me answer, I would be happy to.
BYRD: Yes.
FRIST: It’s not in the Constitution that a United States Senator specifically has the up or down – the right for an up or down vote.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
80 Responses to “VIDEO: Byrd Takes Frist To School”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Think ProgressContact Us
Donate
About time. Thanks, Sen. Byrd.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:30 pmI sense a filibuster argument red herring to mask the fact that Alito is truly unqualified for the job.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:30 pmBOO-YAH.
Nice job!
December 12th, 2005 at 5:37 pmi would have love to watch Senator Frist’s dumbass response.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:39 pmFrist Throws Down the Gauntlet
Get ready for the nastiness to begin… cuz the (R’s) want to change the rules as they go along. Whiny bastards. -EditorÂ
December 12th, 2005 at 5:43 pmIt’s always nice to see Frist getting the Byrd!
December 12th, 2005 at 5:44 pmWhy shouldn’t EVERYTHING that goes to the Senate get an up or down vote. Including Democrat-filed bills that never get to the floor. We ought to hear what Frist had to say — it might be an argument to use against him. Why didn’t Murtha in the house have the right to an up or down vote on his resolution?
December 12th, 2005 at 5:48 pmmaybe frist should READ the Constitution!!!!!!, many BIRD’S to you frist!
December 12th, 2005 at 5:54 pmNo matter what one may think of Byrd, the man has a reputation for knowing the Constitution.
December 12th, 2005 at 5:59 pmFrist is out-smarted by many in the Senate.
Ohh snap! Frist just got dickslapped by Byrd. Heads are gonna roll.
So is he going to come out with the Terrible Two (Santorum and Lott) again and claim this was a “political stunt… a slap in the face!”
Inquisitive minds want to know.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:03 pmFrist is a dumbass and was proven to be .Bravo sen. BYRD
December 12th, 2005 at 6:07 pm“It’s not in the constitution for a senator to have an up or down vote [on a nominee].”
-Frist
December 12th, 2005 at 6:10 pmALL THESE DAMN REPUGNANTBLICANS ,make light of the Constitution , especialy Bush , Frist , Delay . But they love it when it suits them .
December 12th, 2005 at 6:11 pmwatching the left squirm is fun.
“You don’t have the votes ..”
Sen. Barbara Boxer on the Senate Floor in 2003 mocking the GOP’s efforts to break a filibuster for a highly qualified judicial nominee.
Well, we have them now. AND who’s fault is that?
December 12th, 2005 at 6:22 pm#8 I don’t disagree with your broader point, but there is a very good reason why every bill does not get an up or down vote (or even a brief discussion). There are 100 Senators and 435 Congresscritters. Some of them are insane, and write many, many insane bills. Others are quite sane, even admirable, but they also write many, many good bills that have no chance of becoming law. If the House or Senate rules allowed every bill sponsored by any Member to reach the floor, then nothing could ever be accomplished.
This is not to say that, given a conservative Congress, such gridlock would be a bad thing, but procedural rules have to be written so that they produce the best long term outcomes when neutrally applied to both conservative and liberal Congresses.
This is also why I support the fillibuster. In a nation where 17% of the people can conceivably elect 51% of the Senate, and where more people last voted for a Democratic Senator than a Republican, a little protections for an artificially gerrymandered minority is appropriate.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:24 pmWhat they need to do is go back to the old rules of the Filibuster, when Senators were locked in a room and not allowed to leave until the debating was over. We would see how long Ted Kennedy’s fat-ass would last in such a situation.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:30 pmDoes anybody know Frist’s next line? Before I used this against them I’d need to know the next few lines. The Right’s biggest arguments against their own use of language is that those of us on the left take their quotes out of context. Either that or they just say they never said it. I think the reason why the right hates the “MSM” so bad is because it actually records them saying all the things they later want to say they never said. Not that that keeps them from saying they never said it…but I digress.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:41 pmThank you Senator Byrd, for your Constitutional “wisdom”. Senator Byrd, that old KKK Wizard, must really miss that part in the Constitution which describes black people as counting for 3/5 of a person. His discourse on the Constitution reminds me of Ted Kennedy giving driving lessons.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:53 pmToo often though in the last 4 years or so, the Honorable Senator from West Virginia has talked a good game (or written one), but never really has backed it up. Hopefully this will be the start of his backing up his words with action.
Believe me, over the decades his pockets have been lined with just as much, if not more coal company lobbyist money, than all 4 of the Bush campaigns were.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:03 pmI’m no fan of Byrd to say the least, but there have been times in the past 5 years when he’s been the only courageous voice on the Senate floor.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:15 pmI tuned in to the span just in time to see this.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:16 pmThe ‘ol guy was fired up.
Frist must have used the term ‘up or down vote’ about, say, three hundred times or so while sounding like a preacher and jesturing like a first grade student.
#18 — Finally realizing the Constitution is a living document?
December 12th, 2005 at 7:17 pmMightyTranny,
You should ask I-Right-I, he seems to think that blacks still are 3/5 of a person. Byrd recanted his KKK past, unlike yourself (who hates arabs) or Frist, who clearly hates all minorities. I’d rather have a man who ‘wised up’ like Byrd, than one (like you - a man and unwise) that’s still a retarded bigot…
December 12th, 2005 at 7:43 pmDS - No, I realize that the Constitution has a mechanism for AMENDMENTS… I’m still trying to locate that “right to privacy” progs keep yammering about.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:46 pmSen. Byrd has a Book out called ‘Losing America’ The man is Aging, gracefully I may add, but hes still Sharp, his Book makes many Salient Points.
just a Reading suggestion …
December 12th, 2005 at 7:48 pmDS - No, I realize that the Constitution has a mechanism for AMENDMENTS… I’m still trying to locate that “right to privacy†progs keep yammering about and that I abhore, I mean WHO wants privacy, Not Me Im a Pervo and like to Watch People, and use what they do in private against them.
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2005 @
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Did somebody say something?
Naw.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:54 pmA nobody Said nothing.
Frist is distracted by the SEC investigation. If he doesn’t know what stocks he owns how can he be expected to know the Constitution of the United States. Then again, according to Bush, the Constitution is “nothing more than a goddamn piece of paper.” Isn’t this the “goddamn piece of paper” that Bush swore allegiance to?
December 12th, 2005 at 7:55 pmImpeach this treacherous president and all his treaterous friends.
Aj - You sound just like….nah, Mrs. Neat couldn’t be cursed twice. So sorry!!!
December 12th, 2005 at 8:36 pm[…] and another part of the debate from Think Progress BYRD: And the Constitution says that the Senate has the power of advice and consent. It doesn’t say how that consent would be measured. It doesn’t say it has to be an up or down. Nothing in the history, nothing in the Constitution says that. Yes, you can point that out in the Constitution to me, where it says a nominee shall have the right to an up or down vote. Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? Can the Senator point that out in the Constitution to me? […]
December 12th, 2005 at 8:42 pm#18 At least Senator Byrd has the sense and ability to admit that he was wrong in the past, but a Republican would not understand that.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:42 pmAj - You sound just like….nah, Mrs. Neat couldn’t be cursed twice. So sorry!!!
Comment by mighty aphrodite — December 12, 2005
Well At least you realize that you are Sorry.
Hahahaaa, -Aj
December 12th, 2005 at 8:59 pmThis is from a Family member, the Vest Side, Way back when..
Something that IRI would NEVER Understand
I can remember this Plaque on the wall, from a Relative of Mom. Here are those words, again.
George Vest’s tribute to a dog
It is claimed that George Vest was a 19th century lawyer defending a client.
Gentlemen of the jury, the best friend a man has in this world may turn against him and become his enemy. His son and daughter that he has reared with loving care may become ungrateful. Those who are nearest and dearest to us, those whom we trust with our happiness and our good name, may become traitors to their faith. The money that a man has he may lose. It flies away from him when he may need it most. Man’s reputation may be sacrificed in a moment of ill considered action. The people who are prone to fall on their knees and do us honor when success is with us may be the first to throw the stone of malice when failure settles its cloud upon our head.
The one absolutely unselfish friend that man can have in this selfish world, the one that never deserts him, the one that never proves ungrateful or treacherous, is his DOG. A man’s dog stands by him in prosperity and in poverty, in health and in sickness. He will sleep on the cold ground,where the wintry winds blow and the snow drives fiercely, if only he may be near his master’s side. He will kiss the hand that has no food to offer, he will lick the wounds and sores that come in encounter with the roughness of the world. He guards the sleep of his pauper master as if he were a prince. When all other friends desert, he remains. When riches take wing and reputation falls to pieces, he is as content in his love as the sun in its journey throught the heavens. If fortune drives the master forth an outcast into the cold, friendless and homeless, the faithful dog asks no higher privilege than that of accompanying him to guard him against danger, and to fight against his enemies. When the last scene of all comes, and death takes his master in its embrace and his body is laid away in the cold ground, no matter if all other friends pursue their way, there by his graveside will the noble dog be found, his head between his paws and his eyes sad, but open in alert watchfulness, faithful and true even to death.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:02 pm-Senator George Vest, 1870.
Too true, cats… In a similar vein (pun intended), that Frist (a cardiovascular surgeon) can, in all professional conscience, determine the mental status of a woman on home video that is in stark contrast to neurologists who have been on her case for years. Doesn’t the man just instill all sorts of confidence in you? I wonder if he can diagnose any GI problems I might have with audio-recorded bowel sounds or farts?
December 12th, 2005 at 9:05 pmInteresting - I just read on Reuters that Byrd doesn’t expect a filibuster. Maybe Democrats have finally learned something - appeasing the radicals on the left costs votes.
Ask Jean Carnahan, Max Cleland, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Daschle, Betty Castor - the list is endless. Republicans will win when it matters if there is a filibuster. Of course, the far-left at ThinkProgress still believes they are the majority - good one!
December 12th, 2005 at 9:05 pmTo the not-so-Mighty Aphrodite, does the Constitution not provide for the protection of the people to speak freely and to engage in the free practice of religion and to enjoy the right of a free press? If so, then a right to privacy is a basic underpinning of those rights (most especially with regards to the freedom of religion). Also, does the Constitution not guarantee the right of people to be secure against unreasonable searches? If so, then a right to privacy in a basic underpinning of this right. Also, does the Constitution not mention that the enumeration of certain rights doesn’t automatically exclude other rights? If so, then a right to privacy is most certainly a guarantee.
I cannot understand how anyone who would claim to be a conservative cannot grasp this simple principle, although it is perfectly understandable if those conservatives are not truly conservative but rather that hollow mockery known as neoconservative.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:11 pmLike it has to be in the constitution to be constitutional. That is such an old way of thinking. Next thing you know redistricting in Texas to get more votes for the GOP is not in the constitituion.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:13 pm#
Interesting - I just read on Reuters that Byrd doesn’t expect a filibuster. Maybe Democrats have finally learned something - appeasing the radicals on the left costs votes.
Ask Jean Carnahan, Max Cleland, Jeanne Shaheen, Tom Daschle, Betty Castor - the list is endless. Republicans will win when it matters if there is a filibuster. Of course, the far-left at ThinkProgress still believes they are the majority - good one!
Comment by GOP Rocks — December 12, 2005 @ 9:05 pm
I wonder if you’d be saying that after you are pledging allegiance to the United Nations and someone Like Koffee Annan?
And what about ALL those that DIDNT vote?
YOUR GOP and Democrats have Colluded to remove our Soverignity and destroy the Constitution.
Is that What YOU want? Becuse if your voting SOLELY by Party, disregarding the Obvious, that is what you will eventually get.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:13 pmThe United States Will Become NORTHCOM.
Great, Frist gets the Byrd and he has no earthly idea why.
Your previous comments on Frist and my response to them can be heard on my radio show.
Tune in now for todays Thinkprogress segments.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:15 pmGOP Rocks, perhaps you’d be happy to explain how so many of the GOP were more than happy to engage in filibustering when they were in the minority. Hell, most GOP Senators were ready to defend the need for (not to mention, use) the filibuster when they weren’t in charge of the Senate.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:17 pmYou might also care to explain why it was a GOP Senator who first engaged in filibustering a Supreme Court nominee–way back in the late 1960s.
#39 - Abe Fortas was filibustered because of ethics, not ideology. He also didn’t have majority.
As for the Senate GOP - every single Clinton pick that made it of committe got a vote. It’s just the GOP had the votes to vote them down like they did Ronnie White in 1999.
What you are proposing is that the party that has the White House and the Senate should have to muster 60 votes on the grounds that the minority party does not like the ideology of a pick. Maybe in a communist country, not in a democracy.
If you filibuster, the rules will be changed. There is no two ways about it. I would focus my efforts on taking back the senate. Because the GOP will use this against you come 2006 and cost you more seats again….
December 12th, 2005 at 9:23 pmIts so amazing how a man in his mid 80s can outright shut up the majority leader of the Senate. Senator Bryd has been the only Senator fighting with those Repubs and we need to remember that
December 12th, 2005 at 9:26 pmResponse to GOP ROCKS
I understand your argument, but Senators have the right to filibuster any judge or piece of legislation they desire. Maybe you should remember this idea of freedom of speech before you compare the Senate to communism.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:28 pmPS: Thanks for doing what you do American Progress!
December 12th, 2005 at 9:31 pmGOP sucks and stinks like a rotting corpse.
What you are proposing is that the party that has the White House and the Senate should have to muster 60 votes on the grounds that the minority party does not like the ideology of a pick. Maybe in a communist country, not in a democracy.
You are a knee jerk anti-Marxist and you don’t have a clue about, Marxism, communism, democracy or the American form of constitutional democracy in a Republic. You are the ones that want a totalitarian form of government where the few dictate to the many. Some one kick some dirt on this moron. He’s stinking up the place.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:17 pm[…] Sen. Bill Frist admits there is no constitutional right to an up-or-down vote. Not that that should even matter considering he was one of the first to shoot down Harriet Miers’ nomination. Where was her up-or-down vote? It’s not in the Constitution that a United States Senator specifically has the up or down – the right for an up or down vote. […]
December 12th, 2005 at 10:21 pmI am a liberal, and I think that the filibuster shoudl stand, but Frist did not contradict himself. Sunday he made an argument about intent. Today he acquiesed on literal meaning. What was the rest of spiel?
December 12th, 2005 at 10:21 pmIf you filibuster, the rules will be changed. There is no two ways about it. I would focus my efforts on taking back the senate. Because the GOP will use this against you come 2006 and cost you more seats again….
Comment by GOP Rocks
Never happen. You corrupt pussies are all talk. I hope it does though, because when you are out of power in Congress and the White House, like next year, you will regret the day you tried it. It won’t happen. If you had any money, I’d be glad to take it off you.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:21 pmLook, the GOP rocks!
December 12th, 2005 at 10:24 pmDumbasses! Bury your dead! They are stinking up the place!
December 12th, 2005 at 10:25 pmI didn’t realize Senator Byrd also had a clock cleaning business. :|
December 12th, 2005 at 11:04 pmSchool’s in oxymorons! Behold the rhetorical might of the Byrd-man! Coo-coo ka-choo! (Excuse the outburst, West Virginia natives really like it when Byrd does this sort of thing.) :)
December 12th, 2005 at 11:34 pmSo, GOP Rocks, why didn’t Frist fight for an up-or-down vote for Harriet Miers, the most qualified person in America for the job? Hmmmmm?
Here’s a quote from Sen. Frist in his reply to an e-mail I sent to him when the agreement was reached back last summer regarding the use of filibusters:
I was not a party to this agreement and do not support it because it falls short of a simple principle — guaranteeing each nominee an up-or-down vote. I remain committed to and will continue to fight for this principle. Anything less is unfair to the nominees, the President, the integrity of the judicial system and the American people.
Oh, and GOP Rocks, since we have referenced the nomination of Abe Fortas, I give you this little gem from Howard Baker:
Then-Sen. Howard H. Baker Jr. (R-Tenn.), a Fortas opponent, also hinted that his side felt it lacked a majority. Defending the newly launched filibuster, Baker said: “On any issue the majority at any given moment is not always right.”
(source of Sen. Baker’s quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/ articles/ A45149-2005Mar17.html)
December 13th, 2005 at 12:00 amThe only reason Alito would be filibustered is because that would be the oppositions only way to keep him from comming to an up or down vote.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:10 amWell, according to C+Augustus Bush, the Constitution is just a ‘goddamn piece of paper” anyway.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:26 amhttp://www.dopcampaign.org/historypage.htm
Department of peace!!
December 13th, 2005 at 4:03 amWhy does anyone pay attention to this quack in the first place? Whether it’s the SEC or his own disintegrating party, he’s gone.
December 13th, 2005 at 4:07 amwatching the left squirm is fun.
“You don’t have the votes ..â€
Sen. Barbara Boxer on the Senate Floor in 2003 mocking the GOP’s efforts to break a filibuster for a highly qualified judicial nominee.
Well, we have them now. AND who’s fault is that?
Comment by C-BS — December 12, 2005 @
Watching the right squirm is so much fun.
“You don’t have the votes ..â€
Sen. Barbara Boxer on the Senate Floor in 2008 mocking the GOP’s efforts to break a filibuster for a highly qualified judicial nominee.
Well, we have them now. AND who’s fault is that?
Comment by KillCon — December 12, 2008
December 13th, 2005 at 6:01 amnot in a democracy.
We don’t live in a democracy; we live in a republic.
Democracy is merely the vehicle by which those who represent us in government (the republican form of government guaranteed us by the Constitution) are selected. I’m sure most people don’t know that US Senators were originally chosen by the state Governors before being popularly elected. BTW, this is all democracy is - how our government gets there. Democracy has nothing to do with free speech or free religious worship or even the unfettered capitalism conservatives dream so much about.
December 13th, 2005 at 8:49 amThe USA is a Republic. Our form of government is a constitutional represevntative democracy, if I am not mistaken.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:47 amThe United States of America is a federal democratic republic.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:50 amAnd…
Republic and suffrage
December 13th, 2005 at 9:52 amThe United States is an example of a constitutional republic, with a government composed of and operating through a set of limited powers imposed by its design and enumerated in the United States Constitution. Specifically, the nation operates as a presidential democracy. There are three levels of government: federal, state, and local. Officials of each of these levels are either elected by eligible voters via secret ballot or appointed by other elected officials. Americans enjoy almost universal suffrage from the age of 18 regardless of race, sex, or wealth. There are some limits, however: felons are disenfranchised and in some states former felons are likewise. Furthermore, the national representation of territories and the federal district of Washington, DC in Congress is limited: residents of the District of Columbia are subject to federal laws and federal taxes but their only Congressional representative is a non-voting delegate.
[…] Even after several minutes of debating Frist, “Byrd did not let up. Majority Whip [Mitch] McConnell (R-KY) took the floor and interjected that having votes on nominees follows an important precedent. ‘I’ll be glad to take you on both,’ Byrd said, and continued his verbal assault. Each time Frist tried to sum up, Byrd added another comment. Finally, a smiling Frist walked over to Byrd, shook his hand, and backed off the floor.” (CongressDaily, sub. req’d) 10:34 am | Comment (0) […]
December 13th, 2005 at 10:39 amPay attention to the tangential shifts of logic and reasoning, made by the right primarily but sadly by the left at times as well.
Talk about Byrd’s obvious score in this debate-point and you’re reminded that Ted Kennedy is fat.
Point out a contradiction made by a right-wing politician and you’ll be reminded that Liberals hate America or that Saddam Hussein is a bad man.
Point out the president’s lies in the run-up to war and you’ll be reminded that Bill Clinton didn’t like Iraq either.
Will someone, anyone ever take responsibility for words put into the public sphere without using this evasive tactic?
Repubs are supposed to be the party that brought respect and dignity, accountability and responsibility back to Washington.
SHOW ME THE MONEY.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:12 pmCrooks and liars always complain when they’re proved wrong. Right on, Senator Byrd!
December 13th, 2005 at 2:50 pmReality check!!! I believe we are now technically living under a facist goverment state, with many theocracy-isms bought in, puns intended. Part of the, “new design” by the out of the closet, Homophobs Rock Group. So what would Jesus do? He would throw the money grabing phonies out of the temple so he could go about his Fathers business. Being the radical Leftist that he was. Probably put two feathers in Mr. Byrds cap, since he has seen the truth and mended his ways.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:48 amSHOW ME THE MONEY.
Comment by gun toting liberal
If they did that, they would all be indicted. On the other hand, where’s the beef?
December 14th, 2005 at 1:26 amHow about the pork? We can see the pork. Where’s the beef?
December 14th, 2005 at 1:29 am![]()
” alt=”Here yah go tough guy, not kicking ass, hauling ass in Viet Nam” />
December 14th, 2005 at 3:36 amXBOX 360
XBOX 360 games
December 18th, 2005 at 12:00 amCooking Recipes
Cooking Recipes
December 18th, 2005 at 12:01 amVerizon Ringtones
Verizon Ringtones
December 18th, 2005 at 4:22 pmBrad Pitt
Brad Pitt
December 18th, 2005 at 4:23 pmFree Horoscope
Horoscope
December 19th, 2005 at 6:38 pmWedding Bands
Wedding Bands
December 21st, 2005 at 12:16 am50Cent
50Cent
December 21st, 2005 at 3:13 amT-Mobile Ringtones
T-Mobile Ringtones
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:14 pmwedding ring
wedding rings
January 1st, 2006 at 1:25 pmFree Texas Hold Um…
Do I spell it right? Free Texas Hold Um…
January 8th, 2006 at 12:50 pmfree cell phone ringtones…
Let it ring: Cell Phone Ringtones…
January 9th, 2006 at 12:48 pmLife Covarage…
myriad reflexive?handbooks ditch agonizing capitalize become Life Covarage http://www.tucsonwildlife.org/# …
January 16th, 2007 at 2:37 am