Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Frist schedules Senate ‘all-nighter’ on judges
MSNBC ^ | May 23, 2005 | Tom Curry

Posted on 05/23/2005 11:10:50 AM PDT by QQQQQ

Cots were brought into the Capitol Monday as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist scheduled an all-night session stretching into Tuesday to dramatize the debate over President Bush’s judicial nominees and the filibusters that Democrats have used to block votes on 10 of them.

The Senate debated the nomination of appeals court hopeful Priscilla Owen for four days last week and is set to vote on a motion to end the Owen debate on Tuesday.

Opening debate Monday morning, Frist reminded Democrats that he has offered them 100 hours of debate on each judicial nomination, an offer they rejected.

In Tuesday's vote, the key will be how many Democrats decide to join the 55 Republican senators in voting for the cloture motion. Under the current rules of the Senate, it takes 60 senators to vote to end debate.

If Frist does not win the cloture vote, he would seek a ruling of the presiding officer that further debate was dilatory. If the Senate sustained such a ruling by majority vote, then the filibuster-ending threshold would be lowered from 60 to 51.

Frist's proposed filibuster rule change would apply only to nominations, not to legislation.

(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 109th; allnitelong; constitutionaloption; democratnukereaction; execfilibusterbuster; filibuster; frist; judges; judicialnominees; lionelrichey; nodoze; reidsnuclearreaction; senate; uselessenate; ussenate
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: QQQQQ
Since I had to look it up I thought I'd share:
dilatory \DIL-uh-tor-ee\, adjective:
1. Tending to put off what ought to be done at once; given to procrastination.
2. Marked by procrastination or delay; intended to cause delay; -- said of actions or measures.
41 posted on 05/23/2005 11:34:10 AM PDT by BlueNgold (Feed the Tree .....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blaquebyrd
As with everything that Washington (congress) does it is slow. Frankly the idea is to numb the public on the issue with over coverage and make the party that is not on the MSM side look like fools. The only problem is that when the party is in the Majority then the MSM can only criticize the outcome.

So get ready for another couple of weeks of MSM whining when the rules are changed.
42 posted on 05/23/2005 11:34:12 AM PDT by PureTrouble
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Sun
No, they should not listen to media polls, they should listen to the voter that elected them. That is just the problem, that is why they do not rule as the majority. They listen to the media. They should us the media to get theor views across and that is it. They should not mistake the media as being anything other than a propaganda arm of their enemy.

If they would just act like they are the majority consistently for 6 months - and point out that they are indeed the majority - all of the media game woiuld be exposed for what they are.

But they have been trained into submission by the Democrats.

They better watch it because they may lose their majority if they are not careul, and it may not be so easy to get back once it is gone.

It is all so stupid because Bush ran a quite open campaign on this issue (and every other.) He did not signal some "hidden agenda" to consevatives and mask that from the so called "moderate" voter. The 04 election was most particularly not about "moderates."

The GOP is really making hemselves look foolish.

They can still turn it around, but time is a wasting.

43 posted on 05/23/2005 11:34:19 AM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver
"...for judicial nominees to be voted out of committee".

Where did you get that? These nominees have been voted out of committee, the filibuster stops an up or down vote on the floor.

44 posted on 05/23/2005 11:34:48 AM PDT by MileHi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MileHi

Ah. Just so.


45 posted on 05/23/2005 11:36:43 AM PDT by grobdriver (Let the embeds check the bodies!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: QQQQQ

First should extend that to an all-weeker, or an all-monther if necessary to demonstrate to the American public the kind of lunatics that have shanghied the Democrat Party.

But then we DO have a two Party system. One Party has no brain or morals and the other Party has no testacles or backbone.


46 posted on 05/23/2005 11:37:39 AM PDT by ZULU (Fear the government which fears your guns. God, guts, and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MamaLucci
"Bring on the cots!"

This stunt will go nowhere. Why bring cots, why not just start the filibuster and make em talk? Because it's just a photo op. What happened to all the threats last week about pushing the button and invoking the nuclear option? Does Frist need cots to do that? This is just more pandering for the cameras.

47 posted on 05/23/2005 11:38:19 AM PDT by blaquebyrd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Southack

Actually, if we would get rid of this "gentlemen's filibuster" thing and get back to the old-fashioned idea of filibusters, it would be a moot point. What the 'Dems have done to the nominees is not stopping them by filibuster, but rather by the mere THREAT of a filibuster. Traditionally, a party carrying out a filibuster must continue to speak on the floor of the Senate 24 hours a day, seven days a week or end the filibuster. No other Senate business can be done during a filibuster. If they quit speaking, then the filibuster is over and a vote can be taken. We should force them to do an ACTUAL filibuster, rather than this threatened one. I don't see them actually speaking on the floor for more than a few days, and once they are tired and quit, we can get an up or down vote.


48 posted on 05/23/2005 11:40:18 AM PDT by stremba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: stremba
Actually, if we would get rid of this "gentlemen's filibuster" thing and get back to the old-fashioned idea of filibusters, it would be a moot point. What the 'Dems have done to the nominees is not stopping them by filibuster, but rather by the mere THREAT of a filibuster.

I agree that would end all this real quick. I would make the democrats shut everything down. And once they give up on one judge I would send up another. I would make them sleep on the floor till the backlog is cleared.

49 posted on 05/23/2005 11:45:05 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist

"No, they should not listen to media polls, they should listen to the voter that elected them."

I agree, and SOME of them do not listen to polls.

However, SOME of them do - like the waverers. If telling them about the Rasmussen poll gets them to do the right things, why not?


50 posted on 05/23/2005 11:45:31 AM PDT by Sun (Call your U.S. senators & wavering senators toll-free, 1-877-762-8762 re: Const.option,vote yes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: QQQQQ

They will just delay the vote for a change in filibuster. But then, that might be a good strategy. Allow the nominees for the lower courts through and delay the battle unilt the next SC nominee where RINO's in the Senate will be much more likely to balk at a true conservative judge.


51 posted on 05/23/2005 11:48:08 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (G-d is not a Republican. But Satan is definitely a Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sun

Those "moderates" need strong candidates facing them in the primaries and the RNC's backing of those challengers.
Any of them that vote against this should be made an example of GOP wrath. Fat chance of that.


52 posted on 05/23/2005 11:52:02 AM PDT by CasearianDaoist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: spokeshave

CALL SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM'S OFFICE IN COLUMBIA SC TO PROTEST HIS SELLING OUT TO THE DEMOCRATS BY AGREEING TO ENTER INTO A "COMPROMISE" ON THE FILIBUSTER.

DON'T BOTHER WITH THE US CAPITOL NUMBER OFR HIM; IT'S ALWAYS BUSY.

HIS NUMBER IN COLUMBIA IS: 803-933-0112


53 posted on 05/23/2005 11:58:41 AM PDT by veritas2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sun

CALL SENATOR LINDSAY GRAHAM'S OFFICE IN COLUMBIA SC TO PROTEST HIS SELLING OUT TO THE DEMOCRATS BY AGREEING TO ENTER INTO A "COMPROMISE" ON THE FILIBUSTER.

DON'T BOTHER WITH THE US CAPITOL NUMBER OFR HIM; IT'S ALWAYS BUSY.

HIS NUMBER IN COLUMBIA IS: 803-933-0112


54 posted on 05/23/2005 12:00:01 PM PDT by veritas2002
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: jtminton

Going to the matts, or mattresses is from Mafia lingo.

It's time for the shooting war to start.


55 posted on 05/23/2005 12:00:47 PM PDT by TASMANIANRED (Democrats haven't had a new idea since Karl Marx.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: stremba

Because they actually have nothing on these nominees, the real filibuster would be over in about 2 hours.


56 posted on 05/23/2005 12:01:50 PM PDT by threeleftsmakearight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: andyk
"Frist's proposed filibuster rule change would apply only to nominations, not to legislation

Pleasantly surprised to see this little bit included..."

Do they mean non-judicial nominations like Bolton's too?

57 posted on 05/23/2005 12:04:18 PM PDT by Neanderthal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: grobdriver

No prob. I was trying to point out that PMSNBC included this tidbit that most LSM stories conveniently forget.


58 posted on 05/23/2005 12:08:14 PM PDT by upchuck ("If our nation be destroyed, it would be from the judiciary." ~ Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: CasearianDaoist
They evidently think that it is in their advantage to push the fight closer to the midterms.
This seems odd to me - do they have some other "scandals" up their sleeves.

The "odd" behavior you write of is due to the (D)s marching to the Abortion Lobby's insistence of using "any means necessary" to knock off judicial nominees they hate.

59 posted on 05/23/2005 12:08:32 PM PDT by TeleStraightShooter (When Frist exercises his belated Constitutional "Byrd option", Reid will have a "Nuclear Reaction".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: jtminton; grobdriver; 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten; Grand Old Partisan; Clemenza
going to the mattresses

If I recall, Clemenza and Pauley were actually looking for mattresses during that car ride, and Clemenza stopped off for gnoccis and canoles on the way.

60 posted on 05/23/2005 12:12:27 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson