Simply write the approval of the judges into the budget bill under line items for their federal salaries.
Budget bills can't be filibustered.
Posted on 11/11/2004 10:26:57 PM PST by sanchmo
We all want President Bush to be able to get his Judicial and Executive Branch nominees a fair hearing and a fair up-or-down vote in the Senate. FReepers - especially Always Right - have done a great job putting pressure on Republicans to prevent Arlen Specter from taking the chair of the Judiciary Committee.
See: Remove Specter from the Judiciary (Day 9)
Whether you agree or disagree with dumping Specter, whether you have already called and emailed about him or are afraid of losing the votes of the Senate's liberal Republicans, there is something else you can do to help President Bush get his nominees to a floor vote:
Pressure the Senate GOP to change Senate rules to prevent the filibuster of presidential nominees
ABOUT THE NUCLEAR OPTION
From GOP senators pushing for up-or-down vote
...Sen. Arlen Specter, the moderate Pennsylvania Republican in line to chair the Judiciary Committee, is under strong pressure from conservatives in his party to promise he would support a move to give Bush's nominees an up-or-down vote in the Senate by helping GOP leaders force a change in a nearly century-old rule to prevent a judge from being blocked by a filibuster...
...A promise to help alter long-standing Senate rules is part of the penance some Republican conservatives are demanding from Specter, whose comments were widely interpreted as a veiled warning to Bush against nominating staunch conservatives who oppose abortion rights...
...Republicans could ask their presiding officer - most likely Vice President Dick Cheney - to rule that it was unconstitutional to require more than 51 votes to confirm a nominee. Republicans would have to muster only a simple majority to sustain that ruling - thus setting a precedent that judicial nominees could not be filibustered. The rule-change tactic was last used by Democrats in 1975...
Frist finger on ‘nuclear’ button (May 13, 2004)
... The most likely scenario would be for a Republican senator to raise a point of order that the process of naming conferees may not be filibustered. Then the chair — most likely to be Vice President Dick Cheney during such a momentous point in Senate history — would sustain the point of order.
Democrats trying to protect the power of the minority would likely then object to the ruling of the chair, but Republicans could counter by offering a non-debatable motion to table the objection, which would only require a simple majority or 51 votes to pass.
If the motion to table garnered 51 votes, the rules of the Senate would be effectively changed. The same tactic could be used to declare that the confirmation of presidential nominees could not be filibustered...
Nuclear option retained to break filibuster (JUNE 25, 2003)
The Senate Rules Committee has reported a resolution that would ease confirmation of judges... The resolution would change the Senate rules dealing with judicial nominations, which currently require 60 votes to overcome a filibuster. Instead, the resolution, introduced by Frist, would provide for a series of cloture votes, where the threshold would gradually decrease until only a simple majority is required to overcome it... Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) said Frist might first try to call up the resolution, and then try other parliamentary maneuvers if it fails.
Frist finger on ‘nuclear’ button (May 13, 2004)
Senate GOP leaders are considering resorting to what they call the “constitutional option” and what Democrats deride as the “nuclear option”... Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said the constitutional option could be used to prevent emocrats from filibustering judicial and executive branch nominees or the naming of Senate conferees. “The Senate hasn’t been reformed for 25 years, maybe it’s time to reform the Senate,” said Frist.
Lott says he’ll seek a fourth term in 2006 (November 10, 2004)
Lott might seek the “nuclear option” in getting President Bush’s judicial nominees a floor vote. Republicans have discussed the use of that controversial tactic in recent months. Using that approach, Republicans would be able to change Senate rules with only 51 votes — as opposed to the 67 usually needed — to safeguard judicial nominees from filibuster.
Will Senate Republicans "go nuclear" over judges? (September 13, 2004)
Sen. Lott... doesn't expect the Republican leadership to go nuclear on judges--if it does at all--until after the election or early 2005 (assuming Bush and a GOP Senate majority are reelected).
Contact the GOP members of the Senate Rules Committee to demand that they immediately change Senate rules to prohibit filibustering of presidential appointments and nominations:
Trent Lott, Chairman
senatorlott@lott.senate.gov
(202) 224-6253
Ted Stevens
http://stevens.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
(202) 224-3004
Mitch McConnell
* Also Majority Whip
senator@mcconnell.senate.gov
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
Phone 202-224-2541
fax 202-224-2499
Thad Cochran
http://cochran.senate.gov/contact.htm
(202) 224-5054
Rick Santorum
* Also Senate GOP Conference Chairman
http://santorum.senate.gov/emailrjs.html
Phone 202-224-6324
fax 202-228-0604
fax 202-228-4991
Don Nickles
http://nickles.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Email
(202) 224-5754
Kay Bailey Hutchison
* Also Senate GOP Conference Vice-Chair
http://hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm
Phone 202-224-5922
fax 202-224-0776
Bill Frist
* Also Majority Leader
Bill_Frist@FristSenate.gov
Phone: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-1264
Gordon Smith
http://gsmith.senate.gov/webform.htm
(202) 224-3753
C. Saxby Chambliss
saxby_chambliss@chambliss.senate.gov
http://chambliss.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm?pagemode=1
Tel: (202) 224-3521
Fax: (202) 224-0103
Contant the Senate GOP leadership to demand that they change Senate rules - via resolution OR the constitutional option - to prohibit filibustering of presidential appointments and nominations... and that this rule change happen before the next Judiciary Committee Chairman is selected:
Sen. Bill Frist (Tn.), majority leader.
* Also Member of Senate Rules Committee
Bill_Frist@FristSenate.gov
Phone: 202-224-3344
Fax: 202-228-1264
Sen. Mitch McConnell (Ky.), majority whip.
senator@mcconnell.senate.gov
http://mcconnell.senate.gov/contact_form.cfm
Phone 202-224-2541
fax 202-224-2499,
Sen. Rick Santorum (Pa.), chairman, Senate Republican Conference.
* Also Member of Senate Rules Committee
http://santorum.senate.gov/emailrjs.html
Phone 202-224-6324
fax 202-228-0604
fax 202-228-4991,
Sen. George Allen (Va.), chairman, National Republican Senatorial Committee.
http://allen.senate.gov/index.cfm?c=email
Phone 202-675-6000
fax 202-675-6058
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (Tx.), vice-chairman, Senate Republican Conference.
* Also Member of Senate Rules Committee
http://hutchison.senate.gov/e-mail.htm
Phone 202-224-5922
fax 202-224-0776
Sen. Norm Coleman (Mn.), candidate for chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm
Phone 202-224-5641,
fax 202-224-1152,
Sen. Elizabeth Dole (NC), candidate for chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.
http://dole.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=ContactInformation.ContactForm
Phone 202-224-6342
fax 202-224-1100
Contact the GOP members of the Senate Judiciary Committee passage of these Senate rule cahnges happen before any vote on the next chairman:
Yes, Arlen... we're talking to you,
Sen. Orrin G. Hatch
http://hatch.senate.gov/index.cfm?Fuseaction=Offices.Contact
Tel: (202) 224-5251
Fax: (202) 224-6331
Sen. Charles E. Grassley
http://grassley.senate.gov/webform.htm
Tel: (202) 224-3744
Fax: (202) 224-6020
Sen. Jon Kyl
http://kyl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Tel: (202) 224-4521
Fax: (202) 224-2207
Sen. Mike DeWine
http://dewine.senate.gov
Tel: (202) 224-2315
Fax: (202) 224-6519
Sen. Jeff Sessions
senator@sessions.senate.gov
http://sessions.senate.gov/contact.htm#form
Tel: (202) 224-4124
Fax: (202) 224-3149
Sen. Lindsey Graham
http://lgraham.senate.gov/index.cfm?mode=contact
Tel: (202) 224-5972 Fax: (202) 224-1189
Sen. Larry Craig
http://craig.senate.gov/webform.html
Tel: (202) 224-2752
Fax: (202) 228-1067
Sen. Saxby Chambliss
* Also Member of Senate Rules Committee
saxby_chambliss@chambliss.senate.gov
http://chambliss.senate.gov/Contact/default.cfm?pagemode=1
Tel: (202) 224-3521
Fax: (202) 224-0103
Sen. John Cornyn
http://cornyn.senate.gov/contact/index.html
Tel: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
CONTACT YOUR OWN SENATOR:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
1975, when they used a "nuclear option" to change the Senate rules on filibusters.
G'mornin'
Now let's get to work... and pass it on.
bump for later
good work.
REALLY NICE JOB WITH THE 1975 QUOTE.
Simply write the approval of the judges into the budget bill under line items for their federal salaries.
Budget bills can't be filibustered.
Passing it on..
Good morning, david. How's it going?
Good Morning... I am doing well thanks! and YOu?
How would this affect Senator-elect Tom Coburn?
Could this possibly be a back-door attempt to keep Coburn quiet?
http://www.coburnforsenate.com/
I haven't been following Coburn all that closely, but what would someone be trying to keep him quiet about? He seems to support getting quaified judges / appointments through the system in an efficient manner.
Please elaborate.
Under rule 9 in the original Senate Rules: "The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from the chair shall be, "Shall the main question be now put?" and if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put. Rule 9."
This is referenced in Thomas Jefferson's renowned "manual" that he wrote when leading the Senate as Adam's VP.
An explanation of 'the previous question' (which is still used by the House):
"The Previous Question. At the end of the hour, or at least after any time that the minority floor manager controls has been consumed or yielded back, the majority floor manager can be expected to move the previous question on the bill. This nondebatable motion proposes to end the debate on the bill, to preclude amendments to the bill, and to bring the House to a vote on passing the bill without intervening motions, except for the possibility of motions to adjourn or to table the bill or to recommit to committee.
The motion to order the previous question requires only a simple majority vote for adoption, and the motion rarely is defeated. As a result, debate under the one-hour rule rarely continues for more than one hour in total, not one hour for each Member. "
For any Constitutional/Congressional scholars out there, could someone please give me a nutshell version of what a rules change entails? Can it simply be done in comittee, without Dems being able to circumvent with a Daschle like maneuver, or does it take full legislature introduction subject to a fillibuster itself. Thanks for any info from the lazy guy.
Hey, Okie. Interested in your post. Why do you link this issue specifically to Sen-elect Coburn? Sure he is among the top conservatives--maybe the #1 conservative--in the new Senate. But how does this issue pertain to him specifically? Explain your logic. Thanks, Guitarist.
Thanks for the ping!
IMHO the pressure should be put on the handful of Dem senators like Baucus (Montana) whose states went red agains by huge margins. These guys could buckle because many of them come up for re-election in 2006.
They saw what happened to Daschle.
Why can't they just disallow filibusters for judicial nominees(since it's a Constitutional Duty) when they adopt the rules for the next session. Then you wouldn't have to go nuclear(if I understand it correctly).
And why do it now instead of at the beginning of the next session? Because we have the momentum of the elections. Because the Dems are deflated & disorganized right now, but we can expect an organized & agressive resistance in January. And because the Specter fiasco has put pressure on the Senate GOP to do something once and for all about this problem.
We went through this issue when the Texas State Legislators(Chicken Ds) flew the coop to New Mexico. It wasn't until the start of a new special session that they could cleanly adopt new rules without keeping the 2/3 requirement to bring a vote to the TX Senate Floor.
As you said, it can be done before then if we have the intestinal fortitude, but there are tactics that the Democrats can adopt that will bog everything down.
From http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1276801/posts :
Republicans could ask their presiding officer - most likely Vice President Dick Cheney - to rule that it was unconstitutional to require more than 51 votes to confirm a nominee. Republicans would have to muster only a simple majority to sustain that ruling - thus setting a precedent that judicial nominees could not be filibustered.
Of course, any session of the Senate would be able to change the rule back, but the next session - with 55 GOP - would not do that.
The Senate is is session on Tuesday 11/16 to vote on a pentagon appointment.... the day BEFORE the judiciary chair is voted on.
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.