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."

[Cordova Belle]

JLH IS CUTE

Still wanting to know....

;-)

[glock rocks]

let's hope that when it comes to the floor, that the rule change isn't perceived to be a violation of scottish law.

[ken5050]

Well, that's what you get for NOT reading your own posts......(G)...but seriously...I do see a strategery here...I first began to suspect it when the GOP did not bring back the Pickering nomination....because I think he might have been confirmed, the GOP didn't want that..they purposefully fed the Dems the red meat, and the Dems took the bait....what's also really smart about the GOP strategy is that they let Lott chair the rules committe, and also be the initial point person for the GOP on this issue...if any one senator wasn't gonna take any crapola from the dems, it's ole Trent.....he learned the hard way that "going along" with your enemy doesn't work....now, he's enjoying the payback..

[the_Watchman]

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.

I was reading this long chain hoping that someone would get the picture; i.e., this is REALLY about SCOTUS nominations. I suspect that the Republicans did not take the Estrada nomination to the mat so that they would be justified in going for the rules change. If they had forced a 24/7 filibuster on Estrada they would have expended a lot of energy on behalf of one nomination. Now, they have a chance to get the whole enchilada!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Could you post a link to that law? Or post more of it? Thanks.

[Sabertooth]

All that it takes now if for Frist to have the guts to bring it to the floor and for the Republicans to stand together.

I'm trying to be optimistic too, but it's so hard to read things like this and keep a straight face. Not your fault at all, mind you; "guts" just isn't the adjective that comes to mind when I think of the GOP Senate.

[Lazamataz]

JLH IS CUTE Still wanting to know....

Ain't anyone *I* know.

I don't think anybody is cute.

That's cuz I hate everyone equally.

[Lazamataz]

let's hope that when it comes to the floor, that the rule change isn't perceived to be a violation of scottish law.

Schumer want's old Scottish Law himself to be on SCOTUS.

That's proof of Arlen's complete incompetence to the post.

[F.J. Mitchell]

You have friends on our side of the aisle, Schumer? (Only in your dreams.) How many friends do you have on your side of the aisle,Schumy, huh?

[Froggie]

I fear some Jeffordsonian Republican Senator will vote to allow the Dems to continue their obstructionist ways therefore keeping the necessary vote under 51, then little Tommy D. can claim another victory!

[doug from upland]

Ann Coulter mentioned choosing Bork. That would be delicious.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There are three exceptions to this law, aren't there? One of them is that the nomination be pending before the Senate prior to recess. Thus, any nominee which Bush would appointment would surely have been nominated prior to the recess.

This is not a problem and Bush can easily accomplish what he wishes without impoverishing the recess nominees.

[the_Watchman]

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.

In fact, I predict that the way to tell if this rules change has a chance to succeed is if the Democrats counter by offering to allow the lower court nominees through.

[rwfromkansas]

I bet the bastards can filibuster this on the floor, can't they?

If so, we are screwed again.

[rwfromkansas]

60 Votes?

That is IMPOSSIBLE.

Literally IMPOSSIBLE.

The bill is DOA.

[ken5050]

Nope..ain't gonna happen..the GOP has a good chance to pick up a few seats in '04...that's why no lib Pubby is gonna emulate support the dems o this..cause they'd be shut out on committees, etc, and they'd have no leverage as far as threatining to jump.....

[rwfromkansas]

It is looking to me that there is less and less chance of a retirement.

Speculation about retirements has dropped dramatically.

As for this procedural move, is it easy enough that the GOP has the guts to do it?

[ken5050]

Save Bork for a recess to the Supreme Court...

[So Cal Rocket]

Jennifer Love Hewitt?

[mdmathis6]

Two words..."Lott's Revenge!"