Boxer's hold another hitch in Bolton vote. She calls White House uncooperative

SFC ^ | May 14, 2005 | Edward Epstein

[FairOpinion]

Sen. Barbara Boxer of California has erected a roadblock against John Bolton, President Bush's embattled nominee for U.N. ambassador, in a fight with the administration over access to documents.

Boxer said Friday she would lift her hold on the nomination if the administration provided the additional information she was seeking. Boxer took her action to slow Bolton's nomination after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday sent Bolton's name to the full Senate without a recommendation.

Boxer's move, which the Republican Senate majority could overturn by getting 51 votes in favor of a motion to proceed despite her hold, could further raise the partisan temperature in a body already fighting over Republican efforts to curb the Democratic minority's power to filibuster Bush's judicial nominees.

If Republicans try to bring the nomination to the floor without reaching a settlement with Boxer and the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, Boxer could tie up the Senate by demanding endless procedural votes.

[FairOpinion]

Bush and the Senators need to tell the American people about how the Democrats are obstructing the People's business.

Frist should stop negotiating with the Dems, call a vote Monday morning -- surely he could muster 51 votes to overturn Boxer's hold, then if the Dems attempt to continue to obstruct, make sure it gets in the nightly news every day, and let's see how they fare in the 2006 elections.

Even after obstructionist Daschle's defeat they haven't learned -- they need a few more object lessons.

[farmfriend]

Boxer's move...could further raise the partisan temperature in a body already fighting over Republican efforts

When I was lobbying for an energy bill, Boxer's aids told me she would not vote for any bill authored by a Republican. There is no one more partisan than Boxer.

[mgc1122]

Help me out ... by what authority or rule can a single Senator act arbitrarily in this manner?

[FairOpinion]

The hold means, that by Senate Rules you can't bring up the nominee to vote.

Frist would have to have a vote to overrule the hold -- but he only needs 51 votes for that.

[altura]

Thanks for posting this. I've been wondering about the hold -- glad to see that it can be lifted with 51 votes.

(Get ready, Mr. VP)

[FairOpinion]

Senate rules.

It looks like the Senate is full of rules to promote obstructionism by individual Senators -- there is somethign wrong here -- they promote tyranny of the minority to an amazing extent.

And when the Republicans were in the minority, they didn't use all these avenues, they were bending over backwards to cooperate with the Dems.

[frithguild]

Boxer needs to get connected to the Oil for Food scandal...

[mgc1122]

Presumably, there is no Senate rule for loading up her phone banks and email boxes with pointed criticisms ... hint, hint.

[FairOpinion]

There are 55 Republican Senators -- even if some defect, there should be 51 left, even without Cheney's vote.

It's time that Republicans reign in their rogue members -- cooperate or take the consequences.

[BackInBlack]

Well, to ignore the hold would be to knowingly violate Senate rules. Not to mention the obvious ethical problem, the PR bonanza that would generate would shift attention away from Democratic obstructionism and toward Republican "arrogance," as the Dems are saying. I don't think we want to go down that path. Changing the rules is another matter, though. These rules have been abused since the dawn of the Republic to thwart the will of the majority. One Senator really can hold up everything. We should change that.

[BackInBlack]

"And when the Republicans were in the minority, they didn't use all these avenues, they were bending over backwards to cooperate with the Dems."

True, though the Democratic majority was darn big. They had more power than the Republicans now do. Lesson: increase our majority. It's obviously not enough.

[zeugma]

To be fair, (I really hate doing that with these people), Helms used parlamentary tricks quite a bit to hold people up that he didn't agree with. Most of the time, I'd say I agreed with his position, but he was (in)famous for excercising his perogatives.

[Puppage]

..that would generate would shift attention away from Democratic obstructionism

And, just where are we seeing attention to rat obstructionism? Certainly, not in the MSM. Ergo, there's NO attention being paid to it.

[muawiyah]

Somebody provided the panties to the guards at Abu Ghraib and I've often suspected Babs of doing it out of partisanship.

She's losing her hair too.

[FairOpinion]

Here is a very interesting page, with info about who controlled Congress: Senate and House, etc. since 1867.

Lots of graphs and good info.

Composition of Congress Since 1867

This shoes the composition of the Senate for Congress numbers from the 40th (1867-1869) to the 106th (1999-2001).

===================================================

This shows the fraction of Democrats in the House and Senate for Congress numbers from the 40th (1867-1869) to the 106th (1999-2001).

[dr_who_2]

Seems like everything gets tied up in the senate unless it has anything to do with raising taxes, domestic spending, corporate welfare, entitlements, or measures that are in any way blatantly unconstitutional.

[BackInBlack]

"there's NO attention being paid to [Democratic obstructionism]"

I agree that it's minor, though there is often the usual he-said-she-said: "Republicans say the Democrats are obstructing the confirmation of qualified judges, while Democrats counter that they're only fighting a handful of extremists."

Still, to reject agreed-upon ground rules without some sort of vote would lose us even that small measure of coverage of obstructionism. All attention would shift to the oh-so evil Republicans.

Again, I think the rules should change. But that's different.