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 ...
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!
Senate Parliamentarian Robert Dove, the official responsible for enforcing the chambers 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 Bushs 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 Senates 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 Doves 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 Lotts 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 Doves 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
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.
By that time, we'll all be dead of old age.
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.
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?
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.