Senate Committee -- Without Democrats -- Votes to Limit Filibusters

Associated Press/Fox News ^ | 6/24 | AP

[NYC Republican]

WASHINGTON — A Senate committee with all its Democratic members absent voted to limit filibusters (search) of President Bush's judicial nominees (search) Tuesday, a move Republicans hope will usher future federal judges through the Senate faster, even if Democrats want to stop them.

Democrats oppose changing Senate filibuster rules for judicial nominees, but Republicans have a one-vote majority on the Senate Rules Committee (search) and expected to win Tuesday's committee vote in any case. Democrats are expected to fight the measure on the Senate floor.

The Rules Committee officially voted 10-0 for the measure, which would reduce the number of senators needed to force a vote on a judicial nominee with each successive vote until only a 51-member majority is needed.

Minority Leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota had another commitment he had to attend to, and Democrats did not organize a boycott of the vote, spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer said.

Senate Rules Committee Chairman Trent Lott, R-Miss., noted that all 10 GOP members showed up for the morning vote.

"It's hard to get people to a meeting between 9:30 and 10," Lott said. "We got ours here. The others were going to come but didn't get here by the time we finished our work."

All nine Senate Democrats -- Daschle, ranking Rules Committee Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Dianne Feinstein of California, Charles Schumer of New York, John Breaux of Louisiana, Mark Dayton of Minnesota and Richard Durbin of Illinois -- missed the meeting.

"There's no mystery in what will happen with today's vote," said Schumer in a written statement. "But when it comes to the floor, I hope and believe that at least a few of my friends from across the aisle will see the light."

[Southack]

"Then it will end with Lott et al wimpering back into their caves with their tails between their legs."

Except that Lott's job is done. He chairs the rules committee, and this rule change has now passed in his committee, thus moving it to Frist, who can bring it up for a vote on the Senate floor at his convenience.

The strategic error that the Democrats made was to filibuster one or more (in this case at least two) circuit court appointments.

Now the Republicans have actually had time to gather themselves and figure out what to do. In addition, public opinion is on the side of Republicans rather than the obstructionists.

But had the Democrats waited until a Supreme Court vacancy or two had appeared before they filibustered, the press would have HAMMERED the 'pubbies for making a rule change at that time to "go around" the filibuster.

Timing matters, and the Democrats blew it. They could have gotten away with demonizing Republicans if this was a rule change for a Supreme Court appointment, but this is clearly a rule change for a much lower federal judge appointment, and the public isn't going to get bent out of shape for the lower courts anymore than the public cares about ball games before the playoffs.

But the rub for Democrats is that this rule change will *also* affect the Supreme Court appointments. It will now be possible to nominate an uber-conservative to the SCOTUS because Democrats won't be able to filibuster her (or him, naturally).

Frist just needs to make the schedule for the floor vote for this rule change *prior* to the public seeing a SCOTUS vacancy, lest the Democrats are given the chance to phrase this change as being about that vacancy rather than about Owen, Estrada, and Pryor.

[RetiredArmy]

Chuckie has friends in the Senate? Oh, right, I forgot the RINOs. My bad.

[ken5050]

The GOP laid the groundwork for this in the Rules Committe hearing a few weeks ago....they made the point that the Senate is NOTR a continuous body...ergo, the Senate Rules must be adopted at the start of each session...and if you hadn't noticed...they haven't been...Sen Corwyn, who has been magnificent, made the point that his constituents have in fact been disenfranchised, because he wasn't given the chance to vote on the Senate Rules.....so the GOP can just propose a new Rule, and it only requires a simple majority...not the supermajority to change an existing Rule.....

[Southack]

C#96

[hattend]

Bill Lan Lee was recess appointed in 1997 and still had his job in 2000 based on what I have found in a search. AFAIK, he is still there at the Justice Department (I can't find any articles saying he is gone). He didn't get paid for 3+ years?

[autoresponder]

Dems on the committee did not want 100% of them to be on the record opposing a floor vote on rules change.

As in a prior post it was Kennedy, Byrd, etc that changed the filabuster cloture rules from 66% to 60% in the 1970s!

Election 2004

The voting public is not behind the Dems right now and these bums are more interested in survival in election then in the Dem agendas.

None want to join Al Gore out there writing stupid books, gaining pounds, and stuck around their wives eternally!

[ken5050]

I didn't see your subsequent post, when you answered your own question, and made my comments more irrelevant than usual..LOL..

[ken5050]

Excellent analysis of the Dems' errors..kudos on a great job...remember, these are the same political "geniuses" who concocted the Wellstone memorial.....

[Petronski]

Note this language from my post at #80:

However, Cornyn’s May 6 hearing on the constitutionality of filibusters against judicial nominees demonstrated the widely-held view shared by legal scholars and Vice Presidents across the political spectrum that a prior Senate majority cannot constitutionally forbid a current Senate majority from changing the rules if it wants to do so.

If the rules regarding non-filibusterability of rules votes result from the previous Senate, they cannot bind the current Senate. But what about the value of precedent?

[steveegg]

I confirm Authenticator JULIET LIMA HOTEL INDIA SIERRA CHARLIE UNIFORM TANGO ECHO

[MEGoody]

It's about time the Republicans did something about this nonsense. I thought they'd never get of their behinds. (Just in time for the Supreme Court nominations!)

[autoresponder]

Tht can be declared "out of order", forcing an embarrassing Dem plea to the (leftie) Senate Parliamentarian (bloody Dem holdovers!), who can be overruled by a simple 51 majority.

Dems in a box...

[MJY1288]

When will Frist introduce this to the floor?

[steveegg]

I have a valid authenticator code. National Command Authority has authorized the release of nuclear weapons on the DemonRATs.

[nyconse]

If I was Sen. Frist, I would not tell the Dems when the vote will ocurr (gives them time to walk out). I would just bring it up and ask for a vote.

[steveegg]

Better late than never, though I would have liked to see this introduced the moment that the Pubbies regained the Senate.

[Quix]

LIGHT AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL???

YEA!!!

THANK YOU LORD!

PLEASE SPEED THE REST OF THIS THROUGH, Lord!

[steveegg]

If I was Sen. Frist, I would not tell the Dems when the vote will ocurr (gives them time to walk out). I would just bring it up and ask for a vote.

I like your style.

[Lightnin]

"I have two words for the Dimwits..."recess appointments."

And I have two names for you...Robert Bork and Ken Starr!!!

[nyconse]

I don't know. It sure has painted the Dems as do nothing obstructionists-not to mention riling up Hispanic voters. Despite what the Dems think, voters are paying attention.