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."

[1Old Pro]

"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."

Shumer is blinded by that light. I'm loving this....FINALLY we're playing hardball.

[Theodore R.]

I do not understand how 51 senators can restrict the use of a filibuster, but it takes 60 senators to stop a filibuster.

[ken5050]

I watched the rerun of the Dems at Jesse's Push soiree...very interesting that NO ONE ever brought up the issue of reparations....

[Lazamataz]

Spin up all tubes for 1SQ. Targeting: Demonrat filibusters of nominees.

Authenticator: JULIET LIMA HOTEL INDIA SIERRA CHARLIE UNIFORM TANGO ECHO

Under the two-man rule, the order to strike has been authenticated. Nuclear Option is to be exercised in 60 seconds. SARCOUNT is a go. Spark the tubes at 60.

[BreitbartSentMe]

But the key is two-thirds of the senators PRESENT AND VOTING, not just elected!! Here comes the 24/7 fillibuser we've been waiting for.

[CyberAnt]

Then ... how about a FReep of the repubs telling them WE SUPPORT THIS MOVE AND WANT THEM TO GO FOR THE JUGULAR!!!!

That might help!!

[deport]

but it takes 60 senators to stop a filibuster.

---

Not on rule changes.... it takes 2/3rds of the Senators present and voting...... or that's what is written in the current rules, assuming they apply

[1Old Pro]

Democrats are expected to fight the measure on the Senate floor.

Let me guess....a filibuster.

[Cordova Belle]

Oh, no, Brother Ken---I tell them in large black Sharpie that I fully and totally support my President and his (my) party, but that they will not get one more PENNY from me until I see them do whatever it takes---including my President addressing the nation on TV--to get this illegal Democrat filibuster ended. After that, I assure you, I'll add monetary support to moral and vocal support.

Here's the deal: (see George Will's column on this): If Republicans behave as they are so notorious for behaving in recent years--i.e., wimping out--on this issue, then they will effectively allow the Democrats to change the Constitution. Every judicial nominee will require a 2/3rds votE of the Senate to get to a floor vote. That's just plain wrong, and I'm willing to "go to the mat" on this one.

[ken5050]

Oh, he will..."sheets" will go bananas..they'll have to put plastic on the floor for 10 feet around his desk to catch all the spittle.....I'd never wish anyone ill, per se, but it could take a toll on him....and if the GOP picks up a few more seats this time out, he might decide to retire..tis no fun being in the minority...

[CyberAnt]

You may be correct - but a lot of dems who are running for re-election are getting fed up with this stuff - they know it's going to bite them at election time.

[ProudGOP]

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

Absolutely. I posted a couple of days ago that I thought the Dems had made a strategic error by not conceding the lower courts and waiting until the Supreme Court Vacancy opened up to start their filibustering strategy.

The only explanation I can think of is that they got greedy. The didn't believe the GOP would "Go Nuclear" so they tried to block all conservative appointments instead of taking the safer route and waiting for the SC.

They may still be right. We shall see.

[ken5050]

I just couldn't resist.....it was a mellifluous phrase you authored....LOL....actually, I think that Frist (and maybe Rove) have been a lot smarter on this than he's been given credit for..especially by many here....in a sense, he's played the Dems......I think he wanted to make sure the Dems used the filabuster first against a CoA nominee..not a SC nominee..he forced them to do this....now, it's a game of chicken...and the Dems have a losing hand....

[Cordova Belle]

"large black Sharpie?"......

Oh, SHOOT!!!!! I just post this L-O-N-G explanation and then I realize----IT'S A JOKE!!!!

A VERY CLEVER JOKE!!!

I'm just dumb and dumber! LOL!

Touche, Ken!

geez...

[deport]

You may be correct - but a lot of dems who are running for re-election are getting fed up with this stuff - they know it's going to bite them at election time.

---

Maybe so, but I doubt that many of the 19 democrats running for office in 2004 will be impacted by the filibuster flap. It gets some play here on FR but out in the fruited plain I'n not sure it gets that much attention. JMO

[RAT Patrol]

AMEN! Great idea!

[tertiary01]

I heard it mentioned, I believe on a radio program that Robert Bork would agree to a recess appointment, especially if there was important pending cases to consider.

[Deb]

I think McCain will vote with the GOP. This isn't one of his media-driven issues and sometimes he really does the right thing. Susan Collins isn't as looney as Snowe and I think she'll vote rightly on this.

Frist can obviously count and he won't bring it to the floor if the votes aren't there.

Just my opinions.

[Cordova Belle]

I'm from Tennessee and I love Frist---he's my Senator and a magnificent man.

But I've been so outdone by the apparent pussy-footing on this critical issue---especially with Supremes (nominations) looming.

I pray you are right---that this has all been brilliant "strategery" and not typical "waffling"...

[NYC Republican]

I think McCain will vote with the GOP. This isn't one of his media-driven issues and sometimes he really does the right thing. Susan Collins isn't as looney as Snowe and I think she'll vote rightly on this. Frist can obviously count and he won't bring it to the floor if the votes aren't there

Thanks. Exellent points