Posted on 01/02/2007 6:11:55 AM PST by shrinkermd
...A senator can frustrate the will of the Senate by using a "hold," which allows any senator to block a vote on a nominee or piece of legislation. The practice is indefensible even when asserted on behalf of a worthy cause, and even when a senator is open, as Brownback was, about his obstructionism. Rooted in tradition and Senate rules that often require unanimous consent for business to proceed, the hold undermines the principle of majority rule even more than its procedural kissing cousin, the filibuster.
Brownback's hold on Michigan Appeals Court Judge Janet Neff, who was nominated for a federal district judgeship, was an especially obnoxious use of the procedure. Brownback is fixated on the fact that Neff attended and spoke at a ceremony in 2002 at which the daughter of the judge's next-door neighbor exchanged (legally nonbinding) vows with another woman.
But if Brownback's use of the hold is wrong, so is its use by other senators. Reformers, led by Sens. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), are proposing to do away with secret holds, which were supposed to end under an agreement between Democratic and Republican leaders in 1999. The theory behind requiring senators to admit they were placing holds was that they would be embarrassed into giving them up. But, far from being shamed, senators have trumpeted their holds in press releases, as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) did last year when they placed a hold that delayed the confirmation of the chairman of the Food and Drug Administration. That hold was designed to pressure the FDA into approving the over-the-counter sale of the Plan B emergency contraceptive.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
"Hold" should be unconstitutional; one person denying the will of the majortiy.
The LA Slimes cares about holds now that the 'rats have majority control.
Oh yes, now that the Dems are running things, the Senate shouldn't have "holds." During the past 12 years, it was SOP for Dems to put them on Pres. Bush's nominees. Nice try, lap-dog media. The GOP survivors in the Senate need to employ every obstructionist rule that the Dems used the past 12 years to thwart the will of the majority.
The practice of "holds" reflects the utter arrogance of the members of the Senate. Elected to do the business of the people, their self-appointed role, once elected, is to pursue their own insatiable appetite for power, self-promotion and self-preservation. This is yet another reason for term limits.
Senate rules. It takes 60 votes to cut off debate and allow a vote. All very Constitutional.
Suddenly all the parlimentary procedures and rules manipulations are a bad thing, and on the day the RATs take power. Gee ... I'm shocked, shocked I tell you! /TagUnnecessary
"Holds" = Voter Disenfranchisement
"Holds" are obnoxious but they are the final defense against democratic despotism. That is the majority, even an overwhelming majority, can be as despotic as any dictator.
Last year they cared only about minority rights.
Did something happen in the last year to change their minds
Other than the election?
Senate rules are nowhere in the Constitution, except that they be thirty-five years old and set their own rules.
We should all declare ourselves Senators, or declare shennanigans.
Check again. Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
Actually neither Constitutional nor Unconstitutional. The Senate rule for cutting off debate and allowing a vote is a senate rule not addressed by the Constitution. However, if they are going to claim they are denying cloture and refusing to cut off debate, then they should continue to debate the issue until they are ready to allow a vote rather than moving on to another issue. Otherwise they should be required to vote to table the issue in order to move on to another issue. This is how the GOP could have forced a vote without invoking the "nuclear" aka the "constitutional" option. Anytime the dems refused cloture, the GOP should have countered by refusing to allow the issue to be tabled and force the dems to continue debate on the issue rather than moving on to some other issue on how to spend more of OUR money.
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.