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 ...
I don't think the White House was, or is playing that type of political gamesmanship with PresBushes nominees to the federal bench. This was an all out effort by the Democrats to take away what should have been, a few easy domestic victories by the President, by muddling the waters and employing convoluted Senate rules. Until now, they've succeeded. An all out effort by the GOP should have been made from the get go.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the president's judicial nominees, can be put through endless committee debate and never make it to the Senate floor because of a threatened filibuster. Senate rules are in the hands of the majority. Leader Bill Frist should have been pushing this through ASAP. And the perfect time would have been during Operation Iraqi Freedom.
We're talking about shifting the federal judiciary from a liberal agenda, to a conservative agenda and the sooner we get started, the better off things will be.
That is just not true. Read the follwoing. YOu can find the senate rules at Senate rules link
Everyone needs to understand that this rule change has far a far smaller chance of passing than conservative supreme court nomination.
All Senate Bills including resolutions that modify the rules can be fillibustered under the current rules. When and if Frist brings it to the floor for action the Democrats will just filibuster it like they do the judicial nominations. It is just grandstanding.
Here is the text of the Senate rule. Note that a resolution to change a senate rule takes 67 senators to vote for cloture. The Republicans are just grandstanding.
2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule
IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a
motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close
the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter
pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business,
is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or
clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall
at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour
after the Senate meets on the following calendar day
but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and
direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the
ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding
Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate
by a yea-and-nay vote the question:
"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.
Guess it's time for Daschle to drag out those FBI files Hillary had copied for him.
I'll bet there are some cross over votes. The result of Hillary's criminal activity.
Read the senate rules in post 265 and weep. This is just grandstanding. It takes 60 votes to break a regular filibuster. It takes 67 votes to break a filibuster on a rules change.
There are us conservatives and then there are you people ....
Wrong. Any appeal of a ruling by the chair is subject to a vote of the Senators. The parlimentarian can issue an opinion on the appeal, but it is merely advisory. So if Cheney ruled the Dems out of order, they would have to muster a majority of the Senate to overturn the ruling of the chair.
There is the possibility that Dick Cheney could preside over the Senate and declare the Democrats out of order in their filibuster of the vote to change the filibuster rules. This has been tried unsuccessfully in the past during filibusters...
Wrong again. It has been tried successfully at least twice, including when Rule XXII was last amended. They ignored the attempt to filibuster the rule change, and lowered the number of votes to invoke cloture (from 2/3 to 3/5) by a simple majority.
Won't work. The Constitution says a quorum of the Senate is a majority of the whole number of Senators (51). Unless otherwise specified, any vote can be approved with a majority of the senators present and voting. So, asssuming all of the Dems walked out, a quorum would still be present, and only 26 "yea" votes would be required to pass any bill or nomination.
Wrong again. If precedence takes priority, there is no precedent for using the filibuster to prevent the Senate from performing its Constitutional duty of advise and consent, so the chair would be well within its rights to declare such a filibuster out of order. And the only one who can make a ruling on a point of order is the Chair - not the parlimentarian, not the Secretary of the Senate, and not the Sergeat at Arms. The parlimentarian may advise the chair, but his word is not binding on the chair. The only way to override a ruling by the chair is by a majority vote of the Senators.
If the Pubbies decide to ignore an attempt to filibuster the rule change, there is nothing the Dems can do. No court will get involved in an internal dispute over the Rules of the Senate. It would be raw power politics, which is why it is considered the nuclear option.
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.