Posted on 05/13/2005 12:05:44 PM PDT by seamus
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE
SENATE MAJORITY LEADER
Upon completion of action on the pending highway bill, the Senate will begin debate on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations. As is the regular order, the Leader will move to act on judge nominations sent to the full Senate by the Judiciary Committee in the past several weeks. Priscilla Owen, to serve as a judge for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and Janice Rogers Brown, to serve as a judge for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, will be the nominees of focus.
The Majority Leader will continue to discuss an appropriate resolution of the need for fair up or down votes with the Minority Leader. If they can not find a way for the Senate to decide on fair up or down votes on judicial nominations, the Majority Leader will seek a ruling from the Presiding Officer regarding the appropriate length of time for debate on such nominees. After the ruling, he will ensure that every Senator has the opportunity to decide whether to restore the 214-year practice of fair up or down votes on judicial nominees; or, to enshrine a new veto by filibuster that both denies all Senators the opportunity to advise and consent and fundamentally disturbs the separation of powers between the branches.
There will be a full and vigorous Senate floor debate that is too important for parliamentary tactics to speed it up or slow it down until all members who wish have had their say. All members are encouraged to ensure that rhetoric in this debate follows the rules, and best traditions, of the Senate.
It is time for 100 Senators to decide the issue of fair up or down votes for judicial nominees after over two years of unprecedented obstructionism. The Minority has made public threats that much of the Senate’s work will be shut down. Such threats are unfortunate.
The Majority Leader has proposed his Fairness Rule: up to 100 hours of debate, and then an up or down vote on circuit and Supreme Court nominations. Further, the Fairness Rule would eliminate the opportunity for blockade of such nominees at the Judiciary Committee. And finally, it will make no changes to the legislative filibuster.
If Senators believe a nominee is qualified, they should have the opportunity to vote for her. If they believe she is unqualified, they should have the opportunity to vote against her.
Members must decide if their legacy to the Senate is to eliminate the filibuster’s barrier to the Constitutional responsibility of all Senators to advise and consent with fair, up or down votes.
-30-
I predict that as soon as the highway bill is finished we will see Dick Cheney take the Senate President's seat, and the RATs will piss their pants.
Ewwww. Turn your TV on Fox. They're talking about bedbugs and how prevalent they are now.
That has to win the award for least enlightened question of the year.
John / Billybob
I was wondering about that.
-After the ruling, he will ensure that every Senator has the opportunity to decide whether to restore the 214-year practice of fair up or down votes on judicial nominees...There will be a full and vigorous Senate floor debate...-
There goes another year down the toilet.
On this we agree. In fact its really no different than when the People's Republic of Masschusetts perennially return Kerry and Kennedy to DC..
Oh, stop it. The only dumb question is the one that goes unasked.
From Frist?
Susan Collins as a New England Yankee Republican is part of a caucus of 3 or 4, and likely loses her chairmanship, if not her job.
What I hate about these "moderates" is how much control they have. Because the GOP's majority is so narrow, they have to appease these poseurs. They have to be coddled. They use their fecklessness as the source of their power. They will NEVER go along with the party on important stuff without making wavering noises, or no one will pay attention to them.
Who is rewarded more, Susan Collins or Jeff Sessions. Huh? Never heard of Jeff Sessions? Well, he's a nice fellow, but not invited on TV every other freakin' weekend because he is a loyal conservative Republican. Invisible.
John / Billybob
I think that they will only go the "presidential judicial nominees" route, although I really don't know for sure. A filibuster on Bolton would be even more unprecedented than the judicial filibusters. I don't think there are 41 'Rats stupid enough to filibuster a Cabinet-Level appointee -- because that would allow a Republican minority in the future to block a Democratic President's nominees. Then again, I never thought we'd see a minority leader as horrible as Searchlight, who is leading the 'Rats where even fools fear to tread.
No patience with the battle plan?
"nuclear option"? Hmmm...must have been delivered on the backs of turtles. How long are we going to hear from these spineless wimps that they "have had it"??
Are those cajones I see?
Not mine. Watch for a last minute deal that sends the "less contrversial" nominees to the floor, while the rest go home.
Yes, but how could that woman go a YEAR without noticing the bugs and NOW blame her trip to Europe?--doesn't make sense to me----
There will be no last-minute compromise.
LOL!! He was the MB I was thinking of when I read the post!
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.