Posted on 02/03/2010 6:25:50 AM PST by opentalk
Yesterday, Senate Democrats rushed through a party-line cloture vote on Obama's nominee for Solicitor General, Patricia Smith. Smith got 60 Democratic votes even though a Republican senator produced damning evidence that she lied in Senate testimony regarding her role in a controversial program that unfairly benefited labor unions while she was New York State Labor Commissioner.
Today, the Senate is again trying to perform as many favors for Big Labor as it can before newly elected Republican Senator Scott Brown is seated and Democrats lose their supermajority. Senate Democrats are now trying to rush through the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Becker would be the first union-employed lawyer to be confirmed by the Senate to the NLRB and is very cozy with and has received many paychecks from big politically active unions like the SEIU and AFL-CIO.
The Chamber of Commerce is very disturbed by this development and how Becker's vociferously pro-union presence on the NLRB would stack the deck against businesses. Chamber of Commerce Senior Vice President for Labor, Immigration, and Employee Benefits, Randel K. Johnson issued the following statement on Becker's nomination:
“For the first time since 1993, the Chamber is taking the unusual step of opposing a nominee to the NLRB,” Johnson said. “It would be an egregious mistake and would set a dangerous precedent for the Senate to push this nomination through during a lame-duck period. The NLRB has the ability to unduly increase union power and leverage it without intervention by Congress. Confirming Becker will tilt the balance in labor law dramatically in favor of union special interests.”
The Chamber has cited concerns over Mr. Becker’s prolific writings which suggest that his views on American labor law are far outside the mainstream and that his confirmation would disrupt years of established precedent and the delicate balance of law. In addition, we have serious concerns that Becker could try to do an end run around the legislative process by administratively imposing card check, as suggested by former NLRB Chairman Gould.
“While a hearing on Mr. Becker is very important, it is shameful that organized labor and their supporters in the Senate are trying to confirm the president’s controversial nominee to the NLRB, Craig Becker, before Senator-elect Scott Brown is sworn in,” said Johnson. “The Senate is leaving just enough time to jam Becker’s nomination through before Senator-elect Brown comes to Washington.”
Given the rules of the Senate, the Republicans could be doing a lot more to slow this down than they are doing. They could be raising points of order, they could be putting multiple holds on confirmations. It wouldn’t stop the Dems, but it could slow them down significantly until Brown is sworn in.
More proof-positive that Big Labor has the Democrat Party by the shorthairs. Look for any reconciliation Obamacare bill to have Card Check buried in the boilerplate
Is there a hold on the nomination, etc that would require a cloture vote to proceed or is this coming up for confirmation where a majority vote is all that is needed? Do you have any info that you’ve seen/read?
Senate Democrats are now trying to rush through the nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). Becker would be the first union-employed lawyer to be confirmed by the Senate to the NLRB and is very cozy with and has received many paychecks from big politically active unions like the SEIU and AFL-CIO
Not Sure, Senate rejects controversial NLRB nominee
From this article , sounds like Becker was rejected before Christmas. Now they are trying to rush him through again.
The nomination of union attorney Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has been rejected by the full US Senate, which last week returned the nomination to President Obama for reconsideration after failing to act on it before the close of the legislative session.
By unanimous consent agreement on December 24, the Senate waived a standing rule that all nominations upon which no actions are taken before the Senate adjourns are essentially rejected, so that all pending nominations will remain in status quo notwithstanding adjournment. However, Becker was among seven Obama nominees who were deemed “exceptions” to this agreement.
Becker, a former law school professor and attorney for both the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and AFL-CIO, was formally nominated by the President in July, but his nomination has met with fierce resistance by the business community and Republican lawmakers.
WHERE ARE THE BALL-LESS WONDERS?! DO SOMETHING YOU SPINELESS WORMS!
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz), however, put a hold on the nomination after it made its way out of committee. “I have concerns regarding Mr. Becker's written views, which indicate that he would prevent employers from having a role in union representation elections in their workplaces by doing away with requiring fair, secret ballot union elections when requested by an employer and I would like the opportunity to question Mr. Becker about these positions in person and in public,” wrote McCain, in a letter to Enzi. McCain’s hold on the nominee remains.
They are trying to do way with secret ballot .
The second article seems to indicate there was a hold or some similiar action placed on his nomination last session. Then they agreed to let his nomination continue into the new session without renomination by the President.
I looked but couldn’t find anything in the logs for the Senate regarding this nomination coming up for a vote. But the logs aren’t always updated with each action and maybe a couple of days behind. I was able to find Reid’s notice of the cloture vote for Smith in the Firday log.
Ah..... bless McCain’s heart.
If the Senate’s schedule remains unchanged, a cloture vote on Obama's nominee to the National Labor Relations Board, Craig Becker, is expected Thursday, February 4. Such a move will disenfranchise the Senate’s newest member, Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown. Democratic leadership reaffirmed numerous times that the Senate would not vote on any health care legislation until Senator Brown is seated.
Obama Labor Board Nominee, "workers should not be able to choose against having a union" (February 1, 2010 )
It is expected that should the Committee again approve Mr. Becker’s nomination, one or more Senators will place a hold on the nomination. However, a hold does not prohibit a nomination from moving – rather it means that supporters of the nominee need to schedule floor time and get 60 votes to force a vote on the nominee.
Even though the Massachusetts election seems like old news, Sen.-Elect Brown has not been seated and does not expect to be seated until Feb. 11 – that means Senate leadership has a narrow window to try to confirm Mr. Becker during this lame-duck period while they maintain a supermajority of 60 votes.
This is all about passing Card check and growing unions.
Yes others are in the pipeline also. They apparently are going to finish up with Smith on Thursday, vote and the move to a cloture vote on Johnson which apparently has some block on it. Moving them right along before the 60 vote margin is gone assuming that some GOP doesn’t swap sides on the nominees as they do at times.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/B?r111:@FIELD(FLD003+d)+@FIELD(DDATE+20100202)
Down the page near the bottom: Senate, Feb. 4....... info
Program for Thursday: Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of M. Patricia Smith, of New York, to be Solicitor for the Department of Labor, and after a period of debate, vote on confirmation of the nomination; following which, Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Martha N. Johnson, of Maryland, to be Administrator of General Services, and after a period of debate, vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination, and if cloture is invoked, vote on confirmation of the nomination.
The Craig Becker vote, promotes an agenda of passing card check and growing unions. Its an important vote.
working link http://www.efcablog.com/2010/01/articles/congressional-happenings/us-chamber-calls-to-action-on-becker-nomination/
Please refresh my memory. I can’t remember the last time a private hold was overturned by a cloture vote. I’m not saying it hasn’t happened, I just can remember when it happened.
Thanks, I’m disappointed with no challenge to Kirk voting and the delay of Scott.
I think part of that may lie in the fact Scott hasn’t made an issue of the seating himself and has basically let the State define the timeline to which he’s agreed.
The constitution dictates the removal of an appointed senator as soon as a replacement is elected: "Provided, that the legislature of any state may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct."
The clearest reading of this is that Kirk was no longer a Senator once the election was done. However, "as the legislature may direct" suggests that the definition of 'election' could be left up to the legislature.
In Mass., the legislature has ruled that an election is complete when it is certified. So Thursday morning, when the Governor signs the certification in front of the delegates, as the law requires, the election will be "done", and Kirk will no longer be a senator.
The Senate is free to delay seating, as they get to decide their own membership, but the constitution doesn't allow them to continue the term of a member past it's expiration, which for an appointed senator is when an election is done in according to state law.
Note that when they had the fight between Coleman and Franken, Coleman did not get to keep his seat until it was solved, his term expired and he was out.
I don't think this is a hard argument, so my guess is if a vote is held tomorrow, it will be because the Republicans WANT the vote to happen. Just as Brown is not seated because the Republicans didn't want to seat Brown yet, and the votes that passed did so because the Republicans didn't really want to block them (maybe Brown wouldn't have voted with them, so it's better to push the "evil partisan" issue). My guess is that Brown is "ready" because all the things that happened so far he wasn't going to vote with us, or else other senators would have abandoned us if they had to.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.