Lines Drawn for 30-Hour Debate (Senate Judicial Confirmations)

Roll Call ^ | November 6, 2003 | Paul Kane

[Starboard]

Break out the cots.

The battle lines have been drawn in the Senate for the chamber’s first all-night political brawl in more than a decade, with both sides spoiling for a fight next week over the judicial confirmation process.

Senate Republicans said that their so-called “30-hour plan” — at least 30 straight hours of uninterrupted debate on judges — is set to begin sometime Wednesday, probably late in the afternoon, and carry on until nearly midnight Thursday. They’re even holding out the option of going into the wee hours of the morning Friday if their troops are up for it.

Furious at what they consider to be a double-cross, Senate Democrats are ready to mount what senior aides are calling a “major counteroffensive” and are signing up their own Caucus members for floor duty throughout the marathon debate.

Democrats contend that they put forward a “good-faith effort” in agreeing to be in session next Monday and Tuesday, giving up the annual Veterans Day holiday in order to do more work on appropriations bills and other must-pass items before a hoped-for Nov. 21 adjournment.

After agreeing to votes on Veterans Day, senior Democratic aides said, it was only later that Republicans informed them that the schedule next week would include 30 straight hours of debate on judicial nominations, likely to be followed by cloture votes on two or three judges Friday.

Democrats contend the 30-hour plan is a “midweek political stunt” that will only eat into time in which they could tackle other items, aides said. Pointing to Congress’ other priorities, Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) scoffed at the debate on judges.

“They can’t be serious about adjourning,” Daschle said.

A senior GOP aide said Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) had only guaranteed that floor time would be taken up by appropriations into Wednesday’s session, asserting there was “no double-cross.”

“If they’re so fired up we’re gratified,” the aide said of the upcoming debate.

As they developed their plans for the judicial debate, Republicans weren’t sure how engaged the Democrats planned to be, and moved quickly to get all 51 Republicans to pledge to come to the floor and join in the debate, assuring their ability to carry on the fight all day and night. Speaking assignments have been doled out to some GOP Senators this week, while others are still awaiting their time slot.

“I think I’m the morning of the second day,” said Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho), who said the toughest time slots — those in the early morning hours — have already been gobbled up.

Some junior Senators acknowledged their lack of seniority probably destined them for a late-night or early-morning slot.

“You take whatever they give you. I’m pretty low on seniority,” said Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), elected in 2000. “So I imagine it won’t be a great time.”

Some senior Senators have made clear they expect to be given preferential treatment.

“I’ve got a sick hand, a sick leg and a sick ear,” Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), 71, said. “I’m going to have to take the time that’s most comfortable for me.”

With Democrats now fully engaged in the fight, it’s unclear what the format will be. Republicans had been signing up their Senators for 30-minute and 60-minute speaking spots.

Originally, Democrats had laughed off the idea of 30 hours of debate, with Minority Whip Harry Reid (Nev.), the floor captain for Democrats, suggesting he wouldn’t need any wing-men to help bear the burden. “I think that will be so easy I won’t need any help,” Reid said.

But now Democrats are so furious about having given up Veterans Day so Republicans could orchestrate their 30-hour plan that they have their own sign-up sheet for speaking slots. Democratic aides plan on spending the next several days negotiating with Republican staff over the format of the process. Democratic speakers will try to rebut the GOP arguments about the four filibusters Democrats have so far mounted to block circuit court nominees from up-or-down votes, as well as orchestrate a broader theme about their belief that Republicans have “misplaced priorities” and are taking up valuable floor time on judges while a litany of pocket-book issues don’t get the same attention, aides said.

“If the American people really are listening in the middle of the night,” one senior aide said, “this is a message that will resonate a lot better.”

Republican aides pointed to members of the Judiciary Committee as the leaders of the charge and those who are likely to be speaking the longest. In the overnight hours, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), 48, a member of Judiciary, is expected to play a lead speaking role, as is Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), 54. Both Graham and Coleman were elected in 2002 and raised the issue of Democratic blockage of some high-profile judicial nominees as an example of what Republicans have labeled Democratic obstructionism.

The plan has been orchestrated by Republican Conference Chairman Rick Santorum (Pa.), but aides said Frist has been on board with the scheme for some time.

The early portion of the debate is likely to focus on two nominees from California, Judge Carolyn Kuhl, nominated to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and Janice Rogers Brown, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. One aide noted that the early phase of debate on Wednesday and into early Thursday morning would occur during drive time and prime time in California, possibly increasing chances that Golden State voters would hear or see the unusual debate.

Logistically, much of the overnight debate will appear like most business on the Senate floor, with only a few Senators present. At any given time Republicans must have two Senators on the floor, one to wield the gavel and the other to speak. Democrats, however, need only one Senator in the chamber, to speak or, more importantly, to object in the instance that a Republican speaker asks for unanimous consent to move to a vote on any of the contentious nominees.

The upcoming battle will be in essence a reverse filibuster compared to that made famous in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” In that case, “Senator Smith” was desperately trying to block legislation he believed would harm children in his home state.

In this case next week, the people pushing for a vote to happen, Republicans, will likely end up being the ones speaking the most.

Veteran aides on both sides of the aisle say the last time there was a legitimate all-night filibuster was in October 1992, when then-Sen. Al D’Amato (R-N.Y.) spoke for more than 14 hours, including singing show tunes, in an effort to block a tax bill that would have harmed one of the last companies producing old-fashioned typewriters, Smith Corona, which was based in New York.

[Lancey Howard]

I think the biggest Democrat stars will WANT to keep a low profile about their irrational and extremist obstructionism. Hillary should be lobbying for a 4am slot.

[Southack]

I like it! This is a great start, especially since we've already gotten our PBA ban signed into law, as well as already gotten our $87.5 Billion for Iraq, Afghanistan, and Liberia.

Now we can see just how far we have to push to get our Judges approved, even if it means shutting down the Senate.

...And we're doing this so gradually that we can't be portrayed as "railroading" the Dems.

It's the return of smart politics. We first got what we needed out of the Senate (i.e. money and PBA), and then we procede in such a manner as to get what we want without being portrayed in the press as being bullies.

[wattsmag2]

No recess, no respite, no nothing till they allow a vote.

[Southack]

"Furious at what they consider to be a double-cross, Senate Democrats are ready to mount what senior aides are calling a “major counteroffensive”


...


"Originally, Democrats had laughed off the idea of 30 hours of debate, with Minority Whip Harry Reid (Nev.), the floor captain for Democrats, suggesting he wouldn’t need any wing-men to help bear the burden. “I think that will be so easy I won’t need any help,” Reid said."

...

Compare. Contrast. We're furious...no, we're laughing....no we're uh...

[hobbes1]

Though I would point out, that IF a rule change has already been proposed, and filed anytime they get a 2/3 majority of those Present and Voting, they can change the Senate Rule on Filibusters.

[mhking]

This is more gutless bull squeeze from Frist. We need someone with more balls running the show. Frist has shown he can't do it.

And the freakin' White House won't push the damn issue!!!!

Black conservative ping

If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)

Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.

[Southack]

c#42

[meyer]

GOOD! If the Dems are mad, then push their buttons and really send them over the edge...Let's show America that the democratic party sabotages its own citizens for POLITICAL manipulation! BRING IT ON!

Depriving the democrats of sleep should put them over the edge! There may be a few members of the party that will actually melt. Unfortunately, old crusty will still retain its shape while the witch within melts away.

[Tall_Texan]

Democrats, however, need only one Senator in the chamber, to speak or, more importantly, to object in the instance that a Republican speaker asks for unanimous consent to move to a vote on any of the contentious nominees.

And here's the trick. Offer the lone Democrat plenty of water, iced tea, lite beer, etc. while conducting the debate. When he leaves to go to the bathroom, two Republicans follow to lock him in the restroom. Then call for a quorum on passing the RULES CHANGE, summon your 51 Senators waiting in the wings and voila!...an end to the logjam.

I wanted them to do this to the Chicken Democrats in Texas too.

[hobbes1]

The Rule Change has to have been filed previously, (at least a day in advance...) but if it has, you dont need to get the dem out of the room.


you only need to have your 51 ready to run right in and vote, After the Quorom Call, or have the Call denied.


2/3 Present and Voting.

[meyer]

Offer the lone Democrat plenty of water, iced tea,...

If I recall, iced tea is very effective on democrats. :)

[Rebelbase]

"same sh^&* different day"

Yep. Looks like the GOP has polished its feathers and is going to strut around a bit before retiring without a fight.

[Tall_Texan]

At least one of them. I think some of the other Dems prefer drinking blood.

[Starboard]

it looks from here like the Republicans are (finally) making a sincere effort to stand up for Bush's nominees.

The timing of this is interesting and suggestive of "strategery." With big victories in the governships, positive economic stats, and the latest embarrasing flap for the Dems on the Intel Committee, it's a good time to mount a serious challenge to the Dems on the nominations. As usual, press coverage in the liberal media will portray Pubbies in a bad light, so its best to start this offensive from a position of strength.

[You Dirty Rats]

Thirty hours. Coincidentally, thirty hours is the amount of time set aside for debate after a successful cloture vote.

Maybe this is just an empty gesture -- or maybe not.

Good to see Senator COLEMAN is taking a major role! Some may have labeled him a RINO, but any Senator who backs these judicial nominees is OK in my book.

Somehow I think that the key will be Janice Rogers Brown. I just want to see Ted and the two Senators from California block a vote for this qualified African-American woman from California! THAT won't play very well!

[Moby Grape]

Frist is a moderate, and moderates by defintion are gonade challenged.

[Plutarch]

They’re even holding out the option of going into the wee hours of the morning Friday if their troops are up for it.

Well, if they are not "up for it", maybe they can relinquish their seats for Republicans who are.

[bmwcyle]

Here you forgot this every other time

[You Dirty Rats]

Just wait until the lone Democrat is Zell Miller! HE won't object!

Time to play hardball. If Frist has 51 on board, one way or the other the votes will take place -- by hook or (preferably) by crook.

Personally, I'm hoping our side uses some obscure rule, cheap trick, deception, lies, or plain old-fashioned hardball to prevail. The 'Rats have played dirty for years, and turnabout is fair play. Plus, I want to see Senator Byrd meltdown completely on the floor of the Senate after we pull some devious stunt to get these judges through.

[mwl1]

The important thing is to keep showing the pictures of the judges being smeared and obstructed -- a Hispanic, a white woman, a black woman, a Catholic white male etc etc

I say do this every 30 days, and escalate the pressure in 2004 with commercials in key states... RATs up for re-election next year will begin to jump ship... Daschle alone should be paying a fierce political price for this continued obstructionism in South Dakota.