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 Senates 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 filibusters barrier to the Constitutional responsibility of all Senators to advise and consent with fair, up or down votes.
-30-
"Same here....Have been hearing "next week" for weeks now.."
Yeah, and Zarquawi's been caught....again
This time I really really REALLY mean it. So watch out. I mean it.
Perhaps you should listen closer. Last month they said mid-May. Next week is mid-May.
I fear Frist may be playing the threat to get a compromise with the 'rats.
Reminds me of a story: President and Mrs. Cleveland are in bed. Mrs. Cleveland hears a noise and wakes up the President. She says "Grover,there are burglars in the house!!" A half-asleep Cleveland replies "no, my dear. In the Senate perhaps, but not the House."
Can Boxer put a "hold" on these nominations like she is doing to Bolton?
Not mine. Watch for a last minute deal that sends the "less contrversial" nominees to the floor, while the rest go home. The icing on the cake will be all the face time Reid will get for his "reaching out" and his "finding common ground" and his ability to "bridge the divide"....
Its almost as if the GOP is begging to become the minority again. They certainly deserve it.
How can she do that?
I was thinking the same thing when I saw Joe on TV having a press conference re: the base closing---now, Bush has concrete "terms" to dicuss with some of the Senators---
I also noticed that Olympia Snowe was VERY unhappy--considering the fact that she and Susan Collins rarely back Bush on important votes, should she be surprised?
I am being sorta facetious because I also saw the Gov. of Georgia, and we know that Chambliss is a stand-up Republican, so all of the "prospective" base closings aren't "political"....
Doubt in this case is reasonable as we have been let down time and time again. But I truly hope this is it.
Placing bets now. I put $50 they fold.
The grass roots are letting themselves be heard. There will be no last-minute compromise. And any Republican who votes against the rule change will be marked for a primary challenge. Period.
Well, it is past 3:30, have you heard anything yet?
I think that after the little display yesterday by Byrd and especially Reid's betrayal of Mr. Saad, I think that Frist has more impetus to do this than this time yesterday!
I agree. And keep in mind that the DEMs hold the trigger (nominally), not Frist. It takes an objection to the vote to start the parliamentary wheels turning.
Wouldn't it be ironic if a Republican objected to moving the vote?
yeah ,...they "aren't political" , the perfect cover , ah-h, I feel God's hand at work here , or Rove?? "yeah , Karl , go get 'em Tiger!!"
" Watch for a last minute deal that sends the "less contrversial" nominees to the floor, while the rest go home."
See post 69. But the deal they reach will include ALL nominees brought out of commtt. I find it convincing that the dems will be motivated to delay the judgement day till the SCOTUS nominees. But then, like someone posted, if the prez. moves one of these current nominees up whom have already been recently approved (God-willing) that will take a lot of the wind from their sails.
I do the same thing---if I see breaking news and am on a thread, I don't hesitate to post it---I think it is thoughtful to do that for other posters in case they are interested in the particular subject of the breaking news!!
So, I thank you--cuticle girl!!!!!
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.