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

Skip to comments.

Senate Committee -- Without Democrats -- Votes to Limit Filibusters
Associated Press/Fox News ^ | 6/24 | AP

Posted on 06/24/2003 9:16:53 AM PDT by 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."

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Free Republic; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: appointments; dickdurbin; filibuster; judicialnominees; peta
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-359 next last
To: Elkiejg
EXCELLENT IDEA.

I think I'll do the same with the envelope that just came.

I still think the tax laws need changed to allow individuals to designate 55% of their tax bill to no fewer than 3 major departments or major projects.

Anyway--great idea.

Should get their attention.

And, please, when you pass a Shrillery Hellery book display--turn one upside down.
121 posted on 06/24/2003 10:44:21 AM PDT by Quix (FAIR MINDED & INTERESTED--please watch UFO special Tues eve & share opinions)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
When will Frist introduce this to the floor?


I have no idea..... I'd guess the caucus would hold some meetings to make sure all bases are covered and develop stragety.... But I have no idea.....
122 posted on 06/24/2003 10:45:57 AM PDT by deport (TLBSHOW = BUSHBOT de EXTRAORDINAIE TRANSCENDS...MAY 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: nyconse
Nice idea

One problem

Senate rules change votes require a 24 hour notice before any rules vote

Sorry
123 posted on 06/24/2003 10:50:14 AM PDT by autoresponder (. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg; All
WHOOOO-HOOOOOO!!!!!

When I received the latest request for a donation from the GOP, I sent them a note that said in part when they stop allowing the Democrats the stall the Judicial nominations through the so-called filibuster, I "may" send them some $$ - but not until I see some strengh from the GOP. I'd like to think my little voice had an impact - but probably not.

I'VE JUST DONE THE SAME THING---FOR THE 5TH TIME!!! I HAVE TO BELIEVE OUR VOICES ARE BEING HEARD!

I get requests for funds from about 4 different Republican committes, and on EACH one, on the "donation " line, I write iN large black Sharpie why I'm NOT contributing, and mark it with a highlighter.

The next envelope to go out sits on my desk this minute!

I hope everyone reading this thread who gets a request for funds will do the same, wih a promise to send a contribution as soon as Estrada is sworn in!

124 posted on 06/24/2003 10:50:18 AM PDT by Cordova Belle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Bill Lan Lee was recess appointed in 1997


No he was recess appointed on Aug 3, 2000 and served until the end of the Clinton Presidency in Jan. 2001 as Attorney General for Civil Rights of the Department of Justice. President Clinton appointed him "Acting" Attorney General for Civil Rights of the Department of Justice in 1997 which is different than a recess appointment.

Pay I don't know.... but that is the US Code

125 posted on 06/24/2003 10:53:09 AM PDT by deport (TLBSHOW = BUSHBOT de EXTRAORDINAIE TRANSCENDS...MAY 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: deport

Key Senate Official Loses Job In Dispute with GOP

THE WASHINGTON POST -- WASHINGTON

Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove, the official responsible for enforcing the chamber’s rules and procedures, has been asked to leave his post after a dispute with the Republican leadership, Senate sources said Monday.

Dove angered Republicans, especially Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.), with at least two recent rulings that effectively made it harder for the GOP to push President Bush’s budget and tax-cut proposals through the evenly divided body.

Republicans declined to say why Dove had been asked to leave, but his departure will force the appointment of a new parliamentarian -- one of the Senate’s most important, if least-known, officers at a time in which the Democrats and Republicans are seeking to operate under an unprecedented power-sharing arrangement.

The office of the parliamentarian has always been one of the most important in the Senate, but Dove’s rulings have been particularly sensitive this year with the body split between 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. The controversy that led to his dismissal underscores the degree of frustration felt by GOP leaders as they seek to advance the agenda of the first Republican president in eight years.

There were conflicting reports about whether Dove was fired, rehired and then told he had to go, or was simply “given notice,” as one source put it, that he would have to leave. But a senior Republican aide confirmed that Dove had been dismissed by Secretary of the Senate Gary Sisco Thursday at Lott’s behest and would probably continue to work for no more than a month.

Dove, 62, an employee of the Senate since the mid-1960s, was at his desk on the Senate floor Monday but did not return a phone call to his office. Sisco, who is Dove’s immediate boss, issued a terse statement describing the situation as an “internal matter” and declining further comment. Lott told reporters he wanted to talk further with Dove before saying anything.


This story was published on Tuesday, May 8, 2001.
Volume 121, Number 24

126 posted on 06/24/2003 10:54:24 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
FINALLY, someone shows some backbone. Ironically, it was Lott's committee.

Yes thank God we have some backbone.. Just imagine what would have happened if Lott had your brains and guts. He would have taken Clinton down with a conviction on impeachment. Of Course if Lott had the votes to convict, Clinton would have done what Nixon did and resign just before the vote was taken. Clinton would be right where he is now.. impeached but not convicted. Clinton's life would not be much different than it is now.

You certainly are aware that taking Clinton down would have made Gore President. I am sure you believe that Gore would never have used the office of President to pour Pork into Tennessee, Florida, Ohio and other states to help him win in 2000. I'm sure you believe President Gore would not have controlled the agenda enough to win an election in 2000 he only lost by less than a 1000 votes out of 105 million. You don't think he would have used Federal Marshalls and the FBI to win the election for him... do you? Nah! From the posts here on FR trashing Lott for not making Gore President, it is certain most Freepers believe the Honorable President Gore would never have done something like that.

So with President Gore in office until 2004, how would we be doing on the terrorist front? Would we still be firing a few million dollar missiles at empty tents and hitting a few camels in the butt?

As our death total from terrorist actions against us continued to mount would the media be telling us we just have to learn to tolerate terrorist attacks as Israel has for 50 years?

How about the Senate. Would the Democrats have held the Senate in 2002 with out a President Bush to win the Senate seats for the Republicans?

So whose court nominees would we be gnashing our teeth about today with a President Gore. Would those left wing Greenie judges Gore appointed go sailing through? Could Daschle buy enough RINO's to get it done? Would new Justices appointed to the Supreme court by President Gore be left wing enough for you?

Who would be appointed to the soon to fill the Chief Justice and Sandra Day O'Connor seats? Do you think it would be very leftist judges?

If Lott was as smart as you are, this nation would be in a world of hurt. Taking down Clinton would not have hurt Clinton any more than taking down Nixon hurt Nixon. But promoting Gore to President of the United States in 1998 would have made the job of winning the Presidency in 2000 an impossibility. It was d*mned near impossible as it was. Certainly Dubya and Rowe would have known they could not defeat a President Gore in 2000. Dubya would not have run in 2000 and face certain defeat. He would have waited until 2004. We would have had a landslide win by President Gore against a much lessor opponent than Dubya.

Any chance to make the judiciary any less liberal would have been gone for 20 more years, while it would certainty have made it far more liberal.This site is full of guys that think with their emotions. If they were in charge Al Gore would look like a genius.

Anyone with hindsight should be able to see what the consequences of making Gore President would have been. I admit there are only a couple here on FR who can see that. But to my mind I thank goodness we had a guy or two with the foresight to see the consequences of making AL GORE ......... PRESIDENT GORE.

If you want to understand what is going on and why it comes down the way it does, you might try thinking with your brain and not your emotions.

127 posted on 06/24/2003 10:54:54 AM PDT by Common Tator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
Too bad! Ah well, I guess the Republicans will have to send the Senate Police after the fleeing Dem cowards: now that would be an amusing sight!
128 posted on 06/24/2003 10:56:03 AM PDT by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Lightnin
I would have Robert Bork sitting with top Republican Senate aides the minute the Senate seats to vote on rules changes.

Silent.

Smiling.

Recess appointments could do heavy damage to the lefties and give the Republicans great PR on that nutty unpopular CA Federal Appeals Court that voted against the Pledge.
129 posted on 06/24/2003 10:56:43 AM PDT by autoresponder (. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
WHOOOOOOHOOOOOO!!! We're finally playing hardball with the idiots.

You know, this was an eventual outcome - because the republicans have the MAJORITY - and will win the vote. The only reason the dems will argue it on the senate floor is BECAUSE IT WILL GET WALL TO WALL COVERAGE ON C-SPAN!! Remember than when you see it.

3 votes and Estrada is in!!!!!
130 posted on 06/24/2003 10:58:39 AM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nyconse
Will they hide in Oklahoma motels like the Texas legislature Dems?

Or on Fire Island?

131 posted on 06/24/2003 10:59:17 AM PDT by autoresponder (. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: nyconse
In the end denying judges an up and down vote will be ruled unconstitutional. This will stop the filibuster of judges.

By that time, we'll all be dead of old age.

132 posted on 06/24/2003 11:02:11 AM PDT by Cordova Belle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: deport
Alan Frumin is the current Senate Parliamentarian.
133 posted on 06/24/2003 11:02:20 AM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: ken5050; Theodore R.; nyconse; jackbill; autoresponder; PenguinWry; Petronski; Southack
It takes 2/3 of the Senators present to break a filibuster of a rules change, not 60.

Standing rules of the Senate
Chapter 22: Precedence of Motions
""Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. "

I know the Senate rules are mind-numbingly complicated, but come on!

Legislation: 3/5 of those sworn (60) to end debate (break a filibuster).
Rules change: 2/3 of those present and voting to end debate (break a filibuster).


This doesn't apply to a ruling from the chair that judicial filibusters are Constitutionally out of order.

134 posted on 06/24/2003 11:02:30 AM PDT by mrsmith (The Senate Rules Nazi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
You are mistaken. It takes 50+1. Otherwise there would be no news about this.
135 posted on 06/24/2003 11:03:07 AM PDT by Al Simmons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: steveegg
Agreed.
136 posted on 06/24/2003 11:04:36 AM PDT by Reagan Man
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Elkiejg
Always remember the word "demographics". It's what radio people use to target their advertizing and programming.

The point to remember is this: everytime you send a letter or an email - you can be guaranteed that at least a certain percentage of your age group DID THE SAME THING.

So ... you're right - YOUR VOICE DID HAVE IMPACT. In the radio business ... if the station got a letter complaining about a certain issue, the station knew that one letter indicated that a certain percentage - who would not write letters - agreed with the message of the letter - it's called demographics.

Therefore ... if the RNC got 10 letters about the same issue - those 10 letters actually represented thousands of people.
137 posted on 06/24/2003 11:04:39 AM PDT by CyberAnt ( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Al Simmons
You are mistaken. It takes 50+1. Otherwise there would be no news about this

Well... we have Zell on our side, that's 52. McCain may bolt, as may Chaffee, Snow or Collins... We'd need at least one more democrat (one of the Nelsons? Breaux?) to join us to ensure passage... Any thoughts on which RINOs will bolt? Which Dems will join?

138 posted on 06/24/2003 11:05:55 AM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
The Dems will hide on Fire Island of course! (I used to go to Fire Island as a kid. It has since becomes a playground for gays ) Thus, they can pander to the Gay rights lobby at the same time. It's important that Dems solidify their base ie felons and far left activist! I mean Bill Clinton was not only the first Black president- he was also the first felon president. LOL!
139 posted on 06/24/2003 11:06:11 AM PDT by nyconse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: NYC Republican
So why can't they just have a vote to immediately GO BACK to 51 majority? However, any sign of backbone in the Pubblies is excellent news!
140 posted on 06/24/2003 11:07:30 AM PDT by Libertina
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-359 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