Posted on 05/20/2005 8:19:26 AM PDT by Ellesu
Sounds like we have some new blood in there. I think Vitter is the "new guy" I was so impressed with after hearing him speak several months ago. (Forget what the issue was)..but I liked what I heard.
Jindal could be Speaker of the House, Senator, or Governor if he wishes. I'm not certain what his ambitions are.
IMO, if Governor is the highest he wishes to step he should stay in the House a few years. If he wishes higher office than Governor, he should run for the Governor office in the next election. If Governor is not essential to him he has two choices. Stay on course for higher leadership in the House Body, or switch to the senate. I can see the value in any of these courses.
What is appealing about being Governor is that it would be yet another House member who knows how not to lose making the RINO's lives miserable.
Correction-last line substitute senator in place of Governor.
well said. It is looking like there are quite a few of the "freshmen" that have some sense. Perhaps this could be the start of a very good thing. I think much of the RINO problem in the Senate is a result of this sort of thing (it just isn't done that way, blah, blah, blah)...we need to make sure that these new guys know we are watching and that we LIKE it when we can see a spine...maybe eventually, the RINO will become extinct.
"How DARE a Republican expose us Louisiana Democrats for the LIBERALS we are!!! Before Vitter, we had a monopoly on Louisiana's senate delegation for 140 years by conning voters into think we were conservative Democrats. Now we're being exposed for what we are in Louisiana. IT'S NOT FAIR!!!"
She banked on her daddy's DemocRat machine here in Louisiana, Moon Landrieu. It is my driving purpose in life to campaign against here in the next election.
I missed the attack. Did he call her a loser? I do not get it. The left senators are calling the right ever name in the book. I must not be able to read.
He spoke her name on the floor instead of "the esteemed senior senator from Louisiana". LOL.
Consensus is not minority rule. Landrieu is a dimwit opportunist.
A Senator can't hide behind unanimous consent or cloture to kill a treaty. (Riddick's - Appendix - Forms - and Index - see pp1521- and pp1554-)
This implies that a simple majority is required to postpone indefinitely consideration of a nomination, and that less than a simple majority is not sufficient to postpone indefinitely a decision on the nomination.
How does handling of a nomination tie in with handling of a treaty? They are similar in that both are powers granted to the President. The president has the power to negotiate treaties and present them to the Senate for their advice and consent. The President also has the power to appoint, or seat, judicial and executive officers of *his* choosing, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
It is logically false to equate a failure to obtain unanimous consent or cloture with a vote to reject. Under the first, which the DEMs have implemented, the President is denied the appointment of officers of his choosing, and the denail is implements by less than a simple majority of Senators. Under the Constitutional "to reject the nominee, you must vote on the nominee," a simple majority of Senators would consent to the officers the President has nominated. This is a material difference.
The Senate has erected a supermajority hurdle of ITS OWN CHOOSING. A Senate Rule that did not exist until 1917, and has been amended on numerous occasions since then. If the Senate is free to erect its own hurdle, what's to prevent setting it at 2/3rds, or 3/4th, or 9/10ths? Or to prevent a SINGLE Senator from withholding the vote - exactly the way the Senate worked before cloture? The Constitution, say the DEM Senators, gives the Senate the power to make its own rules. They are right, and they are wrong.
While the Senate is free to make rules that affect only it, it cannot make rules that diminish the power of another branch. The Senate has a DUTY to advice and consent, confirm or reject, each nominee; just as surely as it has a DUTY to render judgement in an impeachment trial. It cannot conduct the trial, and then refuse to vote. It cannot consider a nominee, and then refuse to vote.
In contrast, the power of each House to make its own rules, recited in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, clearly applies to matters PURELY internal to its workings. "shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members ... may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
On the outside maybe. Since she is a supporter of abortion, I consider her kind of ugly inside (heart/soul/mind)...
Allowing nominations with a simple majority would practically guarantee approval of all Republican nominations.
I would not kick her out of bed, however I sure as hell would not vote for her. :)
Former U.S. Sen. J. Bennett Johnston, D-La., served in the Senate for 25 years ending in 1997. He also watched the speech. "That is just not done," Johnston said.
My response to Johnston and Breaux would be: "When you guys start paying as much attention to upholding the actual Constitution, to which you swore a solemn oath, as you do your precious Senate Rules, then I will once more consider referring to you as "the honorable Senator from LA".
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.