Democrats Push to Delay Alito Hearings

AP ^ | 02 NOV 05 | DAVID ESPO

[fifthvirginia]

Senate Democrats pushed on Tuesday for a 2006 date for hearings on Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, challenging President Bush's call for confirmation by year's end.

[EQAndyBuzz]

Isn't the date for hearings set by the Senate majority leader?

[jwpjr]

I thought the hearings were set by the chairman of the committee that would hold the hearing. Either way, it would be a Republican.

I am encouraged by the fact that I'm hearing more and more people calling for an end to the 'new tone' in congress.

[Cheburashka]

My understanding is that she has tendered a resignation which goes into effect when her replacement is confirmed.

I presume her resignation has been accepted on that basis, and she cannot rescind it.

Since she wants to spend more time with her husband, who is ill (Alzheimer's), I don't think she would change her mind.

It should be pointed out to the Democrats that a speedy confirmation, under the circumstances, is nothing less than a moral obligation. Every day of delay is one day less with a husband who is still able to interact with her.

[Cheburashka]

Recess appointments are temporary, and traditionally once one has accepted a recess appointment, the Senate will not confirm you and make the appointment permanent. So this only puts off the fight, which is what the Demon Rats want.

Fight now. Why risk losing Alito's presence on the bench for twenty years?

[jonrick46]

This delay tactic is for one purpose only: to give their legions of nit pickers time to develop a strategy to "Bork" Alito. They had to use a tremendous energy to comb through John Roberts' and Harriet Miers' history. This recent nomination has them behind the curve and they need a game delaying strategy to catch up.

[AFPhys]

Rather than rehashing this separately, would you mind taking a look at the exchange that Common Tator and I had with some others on a thread yesterday:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1513219/posts
"DeWine and the Filibuster: This Bears Repeating From Yesterday"

I've hashed out other items such as this with some others in the past, too, but I'm not motivated right now to search for it. I'll probably cover some below, though.

The Republican's "will to win" is much greater now than it was even 5 years ago, but if you do NOT HAVE the votes, and can not get them, you have to take what you can get. Sometimes that is simply to slow the march toward the leftist vision, not even to halt it. You have to take that, and then work to slow it even further. Reagan was great at expressing and implimenting this - many of those who aspire to his views simply don't comprehend that major principle, though.

For much of the "conservative agenda", there simply are not enough votes. (Examples: passing a balanced budget amendment, marriage amendment, term limits). That is not because of (for example) Southerners' desire for sure, and they just can't comprehend the problems Blue State Republicans have and why they keep contributing RINOs to the Senate, etc. Their attitude is, "If you're going to elect a Republican, they ought to be voting in support of a conservative agenda at all times." That type of Republican CAN NOT BE ELECTED in far too many states. We can go ahead and nominate them in the primary - but they are very very likely to lose the general election. We MUST settle on what we have, and concentrate on extending our strength little by little, and with great patience.

Neither the President nor the Party have a great deal of clout with these Blue State "moderate" Republicans. THEY are the ones who have much of the power after all, because any time they want to, they can join a coalition with the all-liberal-all-the-time Demodogs, pass (or block) that agenda item, and move on from there without any fear that THEIR constituency will vote them out! In fact, the more often they do that, the more they WEAKEN the remainder of the "majority" because the not-so-moderates get blamed and those are the ones who get hurt by their disgruntled electorate because "they can't get anything good done". Thus, it is important for the not-so-moderates to avoid ruffling the feathers of the moderates as much as possible and keep that weakening from happening. This is a fine balance, and it is why the job of "herding cats" that the Majority Leader has is so difficult. He HAS to work WITH the "moderates".

Committee assignments and agenda control are about the only way the M.L. can adjust attitudes, and that runs afoul of the ruffled feathers stuff above. And as far as the President's power over Senators, it seems virtually unavailable with the ever-increasing power of the incumbency.

Last shot, down and dirty and completely frank about this: if ANY of the "Blue State" RINOs choose to vote against Alito, that choice may hurt THEIR reelection chances, but if conservatives DO exact that penalty and they are replaced by the inevitable Demodog, the conservatives consign that seat to a liberal instead of a RINO, probably for about 20 years. Is such revenge really productive? That puts this nomination in a very tenuous situation indeed, and the President recognizes this far better than most FReepers.

[Torie]

They want to wait more than two months to START the hearings? The Dems must be slow readers, and are intimidated by the idea of wading through 300 legal opinions that Alito wrote. Biden probably feels that he can read only one a day, and thus the hearings need to be put off for 10 months. Of course, I am sure it has nothing to do with trying to drum up enough opposition to Alito to put pressure on folks, to pick two names at random, such as McCain and Dewine.

[Torie]

Darn, John, we are going to have nothing to talk about for the rest of the year.

[AFPhys]

Quick addendum after I almost unintentionally reread your post:

Understanding and experience in local politics, or even state politics, often does not translate well to national politics. The national chemistry is far more diverse, and that, combined with the nature of the various branches, changes nearly everything when it comes to advancing legislation.

[jwpjr]

A very thoughtful and well-written response. You are right on in your views.

Thank you for a considerate reply. I know how frustrating it can be to have to rehash things like this with those of us who are newer to the forum!

[AFPhys]

Thank you for your research yet again. Great, great job.

If you end up looking up retirement letters, I would appreciate a ping.

[AFPhys]

I'll have you know, that this post of yours regarding "Rule 21" and other such delaying tactics was very disturbing to me.

I was pretty fat, dumb, and happy in my very simple knowledge that the Senate Demodogs had some pretty impressive parliamentary options to slow or shut down the Senate. Now that you've gone done and educated me more specifically about that weaponry, I'm more disturbed, and yea - even depressed, about this situation than I've ever been in the past.

Thanks, FRiend...

[Cboldt]

Recess appointments are temporary, and traditionally once one has accepted a recess appointment, the Senate will not confirm you and make the appointment permanent.

In the history of the Supreme Court, two Chief Justices and six Associate Justices have received recess appointments. They were all subsequently confirmed for full terms with the exception of Chief Justice John Rutledge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

This document -> http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50146.pdf says there were 12 recess appointments, likely some of which were "repeat" for the same individual, and confirms that of these, only 1 (Rutledge) was not eventually confirmed.

Eisenhower was the last President to use the recess appointment power for a SCOTUS position, and the Senate promulgated a resolution expressing its opposition to the practice in the future.

That link is an excellent reference for the entire process, by the way. Repeat:

Supreme Court Justice Confirmation Process CRS-RL31989.pdf
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/50146.pdf

Supreme Court Nominations Not Confirmed, 1789-2004
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL31171.pdf

[ctdonath2]

Remember, the Senate is a group that doesn't understand the meaning of "shall make no law" and "shall not be infringed"; they won't have any problem filling a pending vacancy despite a little lack of precision wording in the Constitution.

[ctdonath2]

Why do they want to delay this for so long?

Just another form of filibuster. The longer Alito isn't in, the less chance he'll get in and the fewer cases he'll rule on.

Their MO is "obstruct".

[Shaka]

bullschitt...total and complete bullschitt.

He has never been weak except letting democrats have ttheir way when Reps control all three branches of Govt. The Plame affair is a media driven frenzy that democrats concocted. What energy crisis? I think once again, liberals have underestimated his abilities. I hope to God he just takes the gloves off and pummels the hell out of these slimy liberals.

[Common Tator]

YOu are more than welcome.

Rule 21 allows any senator at his own discression to take the senate into secret session as long as his request has one second.

It should be pretty obviuos that a senator and a pal could take the senate into secret session and then filibuster on an issue that requires secrecy. They could just debate national security.

But as i read rule 22 the only way to stop rule 21 is with a cloture vote on a request to delay consideration indefinitely . And that takes 16 senators to reqest a cloture vote, and 60 senators to pass the cloture.

The senate rules are fairly simple. they can be printed in just 61 pages. They are very permissive and allow members to get away with tons of stuff not allowed in the house.

For most of our history the Senate has been the most exculsive club in the world. And yes all members were club members. The realigment of the parties has changed that to a place where all senators will have to carry a club.

[Arizona Carolyn]

Of course they did. They want to keep O'Connor as long as possible. If she died they would prop up her body to keep from filling the seat with a true conservative rather than their suddenly-beloved "swing voter."

[Revolting cat!]

[Arizona Carolyn]

GOP in control in name only. Too many RINO's.