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 ...
Well that changes things. So in this specific case, Senate rules can't be changed by the Republicans, because the Democrats will simply filibuster any attempt to do so and without 67 votes the GOP is DOA. I didn't know it took 67 votes to break a filibuster on Senate rule changes. So yoiur right. Both sides are doing nothing but grandstanding.
On the surface that may be the case. However, I believe any presidential judicial nominee, should be given an up and down floor vote, if that person makes it out of committee vote. I'm of the opinion that its unconstituional to filibuster judicial nominees. You may disagree.
The GOP should press the issue and request a legal ruling on the matter by the US Supreme Court. That option has been recently suggested as a possible alternative and a way to get around the use of the filibuster for presidential judicial nominees. For whatever reason, I don't think the GOP wants to go there. May be they don't like the idea of living under a decision that might favor some Democrat nominee at a future date. So we probably won't ever know if its really unconstitutional, even though its an available and valid legal option. IMO.
After all, the Supreme Court determines what is the law of the land. Right CT?
The best way to go, is to elect ten additional (conservative) Republicans to the Senate next year. That would increase the GOP majority, cover the RINO votes and the filibuster would have no bearing on floor votes. Other then rule changes.
Thanks for your info. - I didn't know that. It makes me feel a little less helpless.
Well, the whole reason that they call this proposed rule change nuclear is that the GOP majority would push it through in defiance of Common Tator's common sense interpretation of the 67 vote rule. One price of breaking the deadlock is that we have to live through Democrats complaining that we broke the rules.
Welllll, not exactly. First, it doesn't take 67 votes, it takes 2/3 of the number of senators present and voting, under the current rules... so the most it would take would be 67 votes, it could be less.
If, however, the GOP decided to ignore any attempt to filibuster this resolution, there is nothing the Dems could do. Any challenge by the Dems would have to be ruled on by the President of the Senate (I'm sure Cheney would be sitting for this fight). This ruling could only be overturned by a majority vote of all Senators. So, if the Pubbies have the juevos, they can pass this with a simple majority vote.
The GOP should press the issue and request a legal ruling on the matter by the US Supreme Court.
This would be useless. The Supreme Court has already held that it has no jurisdiction to review the internal rules of Congress. You would have to meet a very high standard to demonstrate that the rule is a clear violation of the Constitution before the Supremes would even consider hearing a challenge.
That makes no sense to me. In fact that whole paragraph is not clear to me. The GOP just can't ignore an attempt to filibuster this issue or anyother issue for that matter. If you're basing your remarks on the ability of the GOP, to catch the Democrats sleeping, I'm not sure that will work.
The GOP should request a Supreme Court ruling on the specific matter of the unconstitutional nature of this issue, not on Senate rules.
All that I can do is report, you can decide.
The Senate, in 1975, changed the rules on the number of votes needed for cloture and they did it, after a number of parliamentary maneuvers, on a simple majority vote.
This was mentioned in a column in the Washington Times on May 14, 2003 by Charles Hurt.
Check it out at:
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=934702%2C134
Well, they actually can ignore the attempt to filibuster the rule change. If the chair (Cheney) rules that the filibuster of the rule change is out of order, and the Pubbies uphold that ruling, the Dems have no recourse. The Dems actually did this back in the 70's, when this same rule was changed from a 2/3 vote to a 3/5 vote. They pushed it through on a majority vote, despite a filibuster attempt, so the precedent is there, courtesy of the Democratic party.
Vote to change the rules: majority.
Vote to end debate about changing a rule: 2/3 of those voting.
Vote on a point of order: majority.
That link you gave didn't work. Would you try again? I missed that thread and I'm curious what method they used.
In the same manner that is has been done at least twice before - either getting a ruling from the chair that the filibuster is out of order, or simply calling for the vote irrespective of the attempt to filibuster.
Keep in mind that the filibuster rules only work if the majority party is willing to abide by them. Otherwise, they have the ability to change them by a simple majority vote, and the Dems have no recourse. No one can enforce the rules of the Senate, except the Senate itself - and that requires a majority vote.
Literally hundreds of times in our past goverment officials have let criminals get away with crime for the good of the nation. Many times we have let criminals go scott free for providing information on other criminals.
The principle that sometimes it is better to let criminals get away with crimes if it is best for our society has been in force for as long as the nation has existed. We have caught Americans who were Russian spys. They were traiters. But if they would flip and help us catch other spies they walked. They never faced any charges or indictments of any kind for the treason they committed.
There are many times in many jourisdictions where guilty men are never charged for the good of society as a whole.
Letting criminals off with out indictment or trial is done every day in the USA. That it was done with Clinton was not unique or even unexpected or even unusual.
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.