Senate Foreign Relations Committee ~ nomination of John Bolton [LIVE Thread]

C-span3 ^ | 5-12-05 | Foreign Relations Committe

[OXENinFLA]

ON CAPITOL HILL Bolton Vote in Committee The Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducts a debate and vote on the nomination of John Bolton as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Chair Richard Lugar (R-IN) and Ranking Member Joseph Biden (D-DE) continue a review of the nominee, based on issues raised at the committee's April 19 business meeting. 10AM-3:30PM ET ON C-SPAN3

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

I've marked it for a detailed read later, but have skimmed it a bit and it has the usual Harvard "we know it all" slant, but so far hasn't said anything different that what I've said.

[Cboldt]

Because the Minority has refused to agree to a UC on debate, thus threatening unlimited debate, and the Majority has decided to move on to other business.

I agree with that. I add too, that the majority was unable to obtain cloture. But none of that forces any Senator to talk. They are free to sit on their thumbs if they want.

[paul_fromatlanta]

I think the assumption is that when the whole party wants to filibuster that 40+ senators will be able to rotate and tie up the senate indefinitely whereas with a single senator it's up to his personal endurance.

[Cboldt]

And you've been told REPEATEDLY how.

Negative. That is the ultimate conclusory argument.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

But none of that forces any Senator to talk. They are free to sit on their thumbs if they want.

But then they vote. If there's quorum it's either talk, vote, or, at the discretion of the Chair, move on to other business. You can't say "I don't want to vote," and not debate or threaten debate (the non-filibuster filibuster I described earlier). It doesn't work that way.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

Yep.

[beandog]

Just wanted to let you know you have my support. Not that it means that much. LOL Anyway, I agree with you.

[Cboldt]

If there's quorum it's either talk, vote, or, at the discretion of the Chair, move on to other business. You can't say "I don't want to vote," and not debate or threaten debate (the non-filibuster filibuster I described earlier). It doesn't work that way.

That's exactly the way it worked for a bunch of judicial nominees. The question is how to use the rules to force a Senator to talk.

[the anti-liberal]

our cajones in our purses

If you plan on lending them to our Repubs, they better be *huge* (or is that hugh?), or you better have enough to go around- me thinks they all need to get a pair!

[Coop]

Last I checked, Joe, one didn't need to be a conservative to voice his/her views on this site. One simply needed to be respectful of the rules and realize that it is a conservative forum.

Paul has been very polite, IMHO, and I welcome him and all his opinions (no matter how wrong they may be!) ;-)

[Howlin]

Chairman has explained it to you. More than once.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

The question is how to use the rules to force a Senator to talk.

It's very simple. The Majority Leader, in discussions over the UC, simply tells the Minority Leader: "fine, you have the right to debate the subject on the floor." If they don't, then they vote. It's that simple. Really.

[Soul Seeker]

Just a suggestion.

I think we should all E-mail Lugar, Frist, Coleman, Allen, mel, etc..and thank them. Frist for his confronattion on the Senate floor that drove Byrd to madness, and the others for passing Bolton through committee. We need to encourage this new attitude to continue. And we need to keep pressure up to have the floor votes.

We've complained a lot, but to have credibility, we need to congratulate when they start listening and getting things done.

[processing please hold]

I am hoping we get a good house cleaning at the UN, and all the apologist are put in their proper places.

I have no use for the UN. It is ran and controlled by the majority who only wish for our downfall as a country. The one worlders occupy the UN. My country comes first, and that is what they hate the most. Americans who love their country.

Not to mention we pay for their anti-American rants.

[JoeV1]

I really don't care if the guy is a liberal. I only care if he is deceptive about it and I believe he is deceptive.

[Cboldt]

Chairman has explained it to you. More than once.

Negative. Chairman and I are still in discussion, and so far there is no expression of how to force a Senator to talk.

I'm tired of talking with you on this subject, because you deflect the discussion into irrelevant, but interesting tangents, or present conclusory statements as though they are substantive arguments.

[Howlin]

I'm tired of talking with you on this subject, because you deflect the discussion into irrelevant

Speaking of the pot calling the kettle black....

[Howlin]

You have disrupted this thread for 1600 posts with that crap; take it somewhere else.

[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

Negative. Chairman and I are still in discussion, and so far there is no expression of how to force a Senator to talk.

Actually, affirmative.

I am done discussing because I am churning over the same material. If you feel I haven't explained it satisfactorily, I'm sorry but I simply don't know how to do any better than what I said in #1912 and other posts.

[Cboldt]

It's very simple. The Majority Leader, in discussions over the UC, simply tells the Minority Leader: "fine, you have the right to debate the subject on the floor." If they don't, then they vote. It's that simple. Really.

So they all sit on their thumbs. They don't have to talk, and they don't have to agree to vote. Cloture is there as a substitute for UC when there are a handful of dinks.

The way I see it, the objectors don't have to vote, and they don't have to talk.

I admit I don't have solid citations to the UC "rules," other than the general citation to all of the Senate rules. Can you walk through how the rules are applied to obtain the scenario you outlined?