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."

[ken5050]

Yesterday, on some show, they were talking about THREE retirements...Brennan was the third....wouldn't that be a hoot......ya never know...

[Notwithstanding]

I don't normally like it when Notwithstanding gets stricken, but in this limited situation I would have to say that it would be a good thing to "strike Notwithstanding".

[Notwithstanding]

EXACLTY! This move lays the groundwork for the GOPs future cliam that it had no choice but to make use of this rule:

---

Standing Rules of The Senate
RULE XX

QUESTIONS OF ORDER

1. A question of order may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, except when the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence of a quorum, and, unless submitted to the Senate, shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate, subject to an appeal to the Senate. When an appeal is taken, any subsequent question of order which may arise before the decision of such appeal shall be decided by the Presiding Officer without debate; and every appeal therefrom shall be decided at once, and without debate; and any appeal may be laid on the table without prejudice to the pending proposition, and thereupon shall be held as affirming the decision of the Presiding Officer.

2. The Presiding Officer may submit any question of order for the decision of the Senate.

[aristeides]

That's a reason to give recess appointments to rich old lawyers towards the end of their careers. They're more likely to be willing to burn bridges with radical opinions too. (Migh as well give the RATs a real incentive to confirm the original nominees.)

[Robert A Cook PE]

Hmmmmmmmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn.

Challenge that authentification!

ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS:

The first party MUST ISSUE the authentification challenge; then the challenged party on the RT MUST accept and ISSUE the Authentification response.

Else, the overhearing enemy can pickup the challenge and reply by issuing false authentifications "challenges" (by repeating an earlier challenge) and getting a different "good response" each time.

[rwfromkansas]

I just hope the GOP will go nuclear if they have to.

[Notwithstanding]

Yes - see #203 - for the rule they plan to use later on. This is simply taking away the dimocrites future charge that the GOP did not try to work wihin the system - now the GOP can point to the failure of this resolution as further evidence of dimocrite obstructionism.

[justshe]

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.

---

Add in the 24 hour notice and we will more than likely see a full chamber. With the 'present and voting' language we can be assured the DEMS will not walk-out to avoid a vote. It would be symbolic, perhaps, but useless as it would NOT stop the vote. Is this your take as well?

[mdmathis6]

"This is meaningless. It takes 60 votes to change the Senate rules. Daschle is still "in charge."

It is true according to Senate rules...not to Constitutional rules. The Constitution states how many votes are needed to pass a treaty or to send a law over to the president, yada,yada. It doesn't state the processes by which these matters comes up before the full senate for a vote. If the Republicans took a simple majority vote to simply cancel all fillibusters and to amend the senate rules so that simple majorities can change them, constitutionally what can say them nay?

[Trace21230]

Ummmm let's see here....

Rehnquist
Kennedy
Scalia
Thomas
O'Connor
Souter
Breyer
Ginsburg
Stevens

Brennan is long gone.

Trace

[ken5050]

Sorry...Freudian lisp....I meant Stevens...

[aristeides]

I'm pretty sure there have been filibusters of changes of the rules. (As Robert Caro discusses in the latest volume of his life of LBJ, this was why it was virtually impossible to change the filibuster rule and get any civil rights legislation through the Senate in the 40's and 50's.)

But if Cheney rules from the chair that a filibuster of a judicial confirmation vote is out of order, and he is not overruled by a majority vote of the Senate, then that is the rule already, and there is no need to change the rules.

[Notwithstanding]

see #203 - that is applicable rule you mention

[Trace21230]

No prob...Brennan and Stevens are equally wrong in my opinion so no harm done!

[mdmathis6]

"This is meaningless. It takes 60 votes to change the Senate rules. Daschle is still "in charge."

It is true according to Senate rules...not to Constitutional rules. The Constitution states how many votes are needed to pass a treaty or to send a law over to the president, yada,yada. It doesn't state the processes by which these matters comes up before the full senate for a vote. If the Republicans took a simple majority vote to simply cancel all fillibusters and to amend the senate rules so that simple majorities can change them, constitutionally what can say them nay?

[aristeides]

After Bill Lan Lee's recess appointment ran out (end of '98?), he was made acting assistant attorney general. This was unprecedented, in view of the fact that the Senate had already refused to confirm him.

[nyconse]

I think the GOP has the guts-President Bush is working behind the scenes. He is a great leader.

[ken5050]

No agrument there..but it was curious that the factoid about a possible THREE vacancies was mentioned..actually, there might be some merit to this..or a trial balloon...supposed the Dems really figure they'll get steamrolled on the two vacancies..they might try to work a deal..get a liberal judge appointed...I hope Bush won't go along.....

[ASA Vet]

Fat fingered the key didn't you? ;-)

[aristeides]

No court will touch the case. And they will be right not to.