Skip to comments.
Bolton Unlikely to Win Senate Approval
AP ^
| Nov 9 2006
Posted on 11/09/2006 12:57:57 PM PST by Leroy S. Mort
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 next last
To: nickcarraway
That can be ignored.
As is commonly noted, the right of senators to place holds on legislative measures and executive and judicial nominations is not formally recognized in the standing rules of the Senate. Holdsor the ability of a single senator to block the majority leader from calling up legislative measures and nominationsarise in the Senate because of the chambers reliance on unanimous consent agreements and debatable motions to proceed to schedule business and organize debate on the Senate floor. Lacking a previous question motion, a simple majority is powerless under Senate rules (except under special conditions) to determine whether and when to proceed to consider a measure or matter on the Senate floor. By placing a hold on a measure, a senator is registering his or her intention to object when the majority leader seeks unanimous consent. Although nothing in Senate rules binds either the majority or minority leader to honor his colleagues' holds, such objections typically delay action because leaders are loathe to upset colleagues whose cooperation will be needed in the future. Leaders can ignore holds, but to proceed in face of opposition they would customarily then have to pass a motion to proceed, which is subject to a filibuster.
http://rules.senate.gov/hearings/2003/061703binder.htm
However, filibusters on judicial nominees is also easily overcome, by asking the President of the Senate (Chaney) to rule on the appropriateness of the filibuster as per what the Senate rules are on nominees in the Constitution (basically, the Senate is only to "advise and consent," which is a simple majority).
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4575047
Look at the fourth question for this clarification.
To: nickcarraway
Helping Chafee was Karl Rove's call.
Chafee didn't even support GWB for President, so why would he support John Bolton.
The RNC looks like a bunch of monkeys.
To: RichardW
Bush should get Bolton in there or leave the post empty for the next two years if necessary. Here Here! What difference does it make if we send no one?
63
posted on
11/09/2006 1:40:31 PM PST
by
Rummyfan
(Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
To: ConservativeMind
As I recall, Jesse Helms used to block a boatload of stuff with holds back in the Clintoonian era. I don't think the matters proceeded further after that.
64
posted on
11/09/2006 1:40:38 PM PST
by
King of Florida
(A little government and a little luck are necessary in life, but only a fool trusts either of them.)
To: King of Florida
For bills, this is perfectly legitimate. It could still be ignored, but would be filibustered, while a judicial nominee can't.
To: King of Florida
I pray that this man gets struck by lightning (what's the weather forecast in RI?) What a LOSER!!!
To: RichardW
Voinivich's weeping act on the Senate floor! Disgusting! I tell ya - I'd rather have thirty-five Conservative Senators than all those RINOs who were and are in there.
67
posted on
11/09/2006 1:43:25 PM PST
by
Rummyfan
(Iraq: Give therapeutic violence a chance!)
To: nickcarraway
That's been Bush's problem all along,be nice and then they stick it to him.
To: patriciamary
Rumsfeld's now available..also Katherine Harris
69
posted on
11/09/2006 1:56:05 PM PST
by
ken5050
To: Leroy S. Mort
Thanks to our Republican friends for turning left at DC when they were supposed to drive right through the line, and then fumbling the ball and allowing the DEMOinC-RATS to recover and score.
This hurts America in many ways. The DEMOinC-RAT Leftist Dictator Socialist Party no longer has nothing to do with America or her values. It has become a foreign agency and is no longer legitimate as far as I'm concerned. Shame on the Republican party, the only political party at this point that would have prevented the take over of this foreign entity.
70
posted on
11/09/2006 2:04:57 PM PST
by
Jim W N
To: Mo1
Sen. Lincoln Chafee (news, bio, voting record), R-R.I., who was defeated by Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse on Tuesday, told reporters in Rhode Island on Thursday that he would continue opposing Bolton.
I'm so glad this P.O.S. lost and the RNC gets what it deserves trying to save his hide.
71
posted on
11/09/2006 2:06:14 PM PST
by
hipaatwo
(Vote for your life. Every vote for a Democrat is a vote against victory.)
To: Leroy S. Mort
72
posted on
11/09/2006 2:09:58 PM PST
by
GnL
To: nickcarraway
That actually says more about Chaffee (a gelatinous little backstabber) than it does about Bush.
73
posted on
11/09/2006 2:14:37 PM PST
by
My2Cents
To: edpc
The way I understand it, Bush can recess appoint him again, but he can't be paid. I wonder if a Bolton fund is legal.....Looks like restrictions apply only to payments from the U.S.Treasury.
Private funding of Bolton would in no way be illegal.
It's absolutely essential that President Bush appoint Ambassador Bolton for the final two years of the Administration.
It's exactly these kinds of political gains that must be salvaged--rescued from the approaching Democrat wrecking-ball.
Can the President Make Successive Recess Appointments to the Same Position?
The President may make successive recess appointments of the same or a different individual to a position. Payment from the Treasury to the appointee may be limited, however, under 5 U.S.C. 5503.
Subsection 5503(a) provides, in part, that:
Payment for services may not be made from the Treasury of the United States to an individual appointed during a recess of the Senate to fill a vacancy in an existing office, if the vacancy existed while the Senate was in session and was by law required to be filled by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, until the appointee has been confirmed by the Senate.
74
posted on
11/09/2006 2:15:18 PM PST
by
henbane
To: Leroy S. Mort
[Chafee's opposition] would deny Republicans the votes they would need to move Bolton's nomination from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Then. Replace. Him.
75
posted on
11/09/2006 2:16:14 PM PST
by
BibChr
("...behold, they have rejected the word of the LORD, so what wisdom is in them?" [Jer. 8:9])
To: henbane
I'm in. Let's start a fund.
76
posted on
11/09/2006 2:17:41 PM PST
by
edpc
(Violence is ALWAYS a solution. Maybe not the right one....but a solution nonetheless)
To: Leroy S. Mort
How about pulling out of the UN and sending the pack of thieves to Iran?
77
posted on
11/09/2006 2:18:44 PM PST
by
Ukiapah Heep
(Shoes for Industry!)
To: Leroy S. Mort
Nominate Donald Rumsfeld! Drive the Dims absolutely nuts!
And when they turn him down nominate someone even more conservative (and abrasive).
And withhold funding of the U.N. until they approve our nominee.
Time we learned to play hardball.
78
posted on
11/09/2006 2:18:57 PM PST
by
Thom Pain
(8/14/2006 Israel made a HUGH mistake!)
To: Obadiah
Honestly, has there ever been a Republican who was give so much - money, support, etc. and who so viciously STABBED us in the back, time after time??Specter? (he at least runs a close second)
To: ConservativeMind
And Vice President Cheney can break he tie if needed.
80
posted on
11/09/2006 2:32:39 PM PST
by
JOE43270
(JOE43270, God Bless America and All Who Have and Will Defend Her.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-90 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson