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."

[jackbill]

I don't know what happened to the link, but somehow I screwed up. Try this one. If it doesn't work, I'll copy and post the article. Let me know.

http://washingtontimes.com/national/20030513-104057-4994r.htm

The author doesn't explain the "parliamentarian procedures" but he is adamant that the total effort took only a simple majority.

[nyconse]

If this is the case-why can't Cheney simply rule the Dems out of order when they bring up a cloture vote?

[mrsmith]

Well, I found what the Senate history page has on that 1975 vote.http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/nelson_rockefeller.pdf.

"Vice President Rockefeller found the Senate equally impervious to his desire to exert leadership. In January 1975, when the post-Watergate Congress met, the expanded liberal ranks in the Senate moved to amend Rule 22 to reduce from two-thirds to three-fifths of the senators the number of votes needed to invoke cloture and end a filibuster. Minnesota Democratic Senator Walter Mondale introduced the amendment, and Kansas Republican James Pearson moved that the chair place before the Senate a motion to change the cloture rule by a majority vote.
When the Senate took up the matter in February, Senate Democratic Majority Leader Mike Mansfield raised a point of order that the motion violated Senate rules by permitting a simple majority vote to end debate. Instead of ruling on the point of order, Vice President Rockefeller submitted it to the Senate for a vote, stating that, if the body tabled the point of order, he "would be compelled to interpret that action as an expression by the Senate of its judgment that the motion offered by the Senator from Kansas to end debate is a proper motion."
The Senate voted 51 to 42 to table Mansfield's motion, in effect agreeing that Senate rules could be changed by a simple majority vote at the beginning of a Congress. The Senate, however, adjourned for the day without actually voting on the resolution to take up the cloture rule change.
The leaders of both parties then met and determined that they disagreed with this procedure, which they felt had set a dangerous precedent. The leadership therefore devised a plan to void the rulings of the chair and revise the cloture rule in a more traditional manner.
More than a week later, in early March, the Senate voted to reconsider the vote by which the Mansfield point of order had been tabled and then agreed to Mansfield's point of order by a majority vote.
A cloture motion was then filed and agreed to, 73 to 21, after which the Senate adopted a substitute amendment introduced by Senator Robert C. Byrd, which specified that cloture could be invoked by a three-fifths vote on all issues except changes in the rules, which would still require a two-thirds vote.
In making his controversial ruling, Rockefeller had notified the Senate parliamentarian that he was making the decision on his own, contrary to the parliamentarian's advice. As parliamentarian emeritus Floyd Riddick observed, "Certainly it was contrary to the practices and precedents of the Senate, and I think that is why the leadership, under Mr. Mansfield as majority leader, wanted to vitiate in effect all of the statements made by the vice president and come back and do it under the rules, practices, and precedents of the Senate."

That rule actually ended up being changed by a regular 2/3 vote.
But that is not to say that Rockefeller was wrong.
If the Majority Leader had backed him he would have prevailed.

Maybe Frist is going to have Cheney rule, then offer his amendment as a compromise.

[Reagan Man]

The whole things a clusterf*** and by doing nothing the GOP remains between a rock and a hard place.

The best way to fight a Senate filibuster is to have enough votes to overcome it. What you say the GOP should do, in the end doesn't sound doable to be.

We shall see what transpires. But at this point it doesn't look good for Bushes nominees.

[Common Tator]

One price of breaking the deadlock is that we have to live through Democrats complaining that we broke the rules.

Remember that the Senate has been running on the rules adopted in the last session. If the Republicans really thought that the old rules did not apply, Frist would have had the Senate adopt new rules by a 51 vote majority last January. The Republicans did not do that. They have operated for six months on the old rules. The reupublicans tried to adopt new rules under the old rules in January and failed.

Here is what the constitution says about Senate and House rules. It says each house may adopt its own rules It does not say new rules must be adopted with each session. And the rule I sited was passed as a a STANDING RULE of the Senate. The word standing has legal meaning that it stands in force until repealed or modified.

 
  Section. 5. 
 
   Clause 1: Each House shall be the Judge of the 
   Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own 
   Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a 
   Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn 
   from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the 
   Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under 
   such Penalties as each House may provide. 
 

   Clause 2: Each House may determine the Rules of its 
   Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly 
   Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, 
   expel a Member. 

The constitution says "adopt rules." it does not say they must re-adopt rules for each session. Rules have been adopted. They are in force.

All senate bills and resolutions that expire in time certain have to have a sunset provision. The Senate rules do not have a sunset provision. The senate rules are a senate resolution. If what Lott and Frist say is true, they would have to renew all taxes in every new session. Every law on the books would havet to be passed every session. The Supreme court has ruled that provisions of legislative acts that do not contain a sunset provision will remain in force until repealed or modified.

Frist and Lott are just playing games.

If they try to pass it with 51 votes, the Democrats will take it to the Supreme court and win. And won't that look good with the general public. This kind of stupid foolishness could cost the Republicans control of the Senate in 2004.

Bush will not let that happen. I don't think the Republicans can get 50 votes and Cheney is not stupid enough to vote for it with a 50 50 tie.

This is just grandstanding for the ignorant base. THere are certainly a lot of members of that group.

[jackbill]

Great find!

Looks like the "Senate" was afraid of the precedent of a majority vote rule change so they backed off and approved the rules change big time.

That's called hardball. It worked before, it can work again.

And if anyone thinks that VP Dick Cheney isn't up to it, I've got a nice bridge that I'm willing to let go at a great price.

[Action-America]

All of a sudden, I'm not so sure that getting Dubya's judicial nominees through the Senate is all that great an idea.  After all, two of his daddy's nominees to the SCOTUS voted in favor of affirmative action yesterday.  If Dubya's nominees aren't any better than his daddy's, then our courts are in a world of hurt.

Then add to that, Dubya's liberal attacks on the Constitution over the last almost two years (Patriot Act, HSA, Jose Padillia, etc.) and I'm not so sure that I want any more Bush family nominees on the federal bench.

If Dubya weren't such a RINO, I would be cheering this Senate vote.  But, under the circumstance, I just can't get all that excited.  The only thing that the GOP could do that would really excite me in a positive way any more, would be to run a real Republican in place of Dubya in the next election.  Yeah, sure.  I know that won't possibly happen.  So, that means that the only things that the GOP might do exciting in the foreseeable future, is not the kind of excitement that we need (Patriot II, etc.).

But, we can still dream...  Well,... I think we can still dream.  I don't believe that Congress and the Whitehouse have outlawed Dreaming yet.  But, judging from what we have seen from our elected officials since 9/11/01, I wouldn't be surprised if such legislation isn't already being drafted and I wouldn't even be surprised if it's being drafted in the Oval Office.

 

[alwaysconservative]

What I don't understand is that these Dimbulbs seem to not care that they are wasting the money and good faith of the people who put them in office to actually, you know, like, show up for work. Why aren't Dems called to account for failure/dereliction of duty? EVER?

[Common Tator]

Maybe Frist is going to have Cheney rule, then offer his amendment as a compromise.

This Senate is not Mike Mansfield and Nelson Rockefeller. This is the most partison senate in the history of history.

Daschle will take it to the Supreme Court and win.

The strict constructionists on the court will go with the Democrats based on the rule of law that governs all Senate bills and resolutions. They will rule on the literal words of the constitution. That Democrats on the Supreme court will vote for the Democrats should not surprise anyone.

Frist will lose in the Supreme court 9 to zip and it will go down like Roosevelts attempt to pack the court.

This is one dumb move and Lott knows it. Lott wants Frist canned as a payback... He may just get it done.

I am beginning to believe that Frist is one dumb sucker. I fear Lott is leading him to the chopping block.

[Common Tator]

Why aren't Dems called to account for failure/dereliction of duty? EVER?

If they showed up and voted, the vote would have been 10 to 9. Instead it was 10 to zip. They obviously wanted to draw attention to the stupid act being carried out. They got that done.

Why would anyone with a brain go vote on a motion they were certain to lose?

Voting on this issue is like voting on an instant replay. The result was known.

[jackbill]

Daschle will take it to the Supreme Court and win.

My guess is that the Supremes won't touch a "Senate rules" issue with a ten foot pole. Separate branches of government and all of that. Separation of powers and all of that.

It's a no-win, big-lose situation for the Supremes and they were not born yesterday.

[DallasMike]

My guess is that the Supremes won't touch a "Senate rules" issue with a ten foot pole.

Agreed. Unless it concerned an act that could be construed as unconstitional, they're not going to touch it. If the Republicans have the guts to carry this through then it's a winner, even though the New York Times and Democrats are going to howl for a couple of weeks. I don't think the Republicans would have started this process if they didn't know the outcome in advance.

[Torie]

I see nothing in the Constitution that says a two thirds vote is needed to change the rules. My prediction if this comes to pass (a rule change made by majority vote), is that SCOTUS will refuse to take the case. I don't think it is justicable. In any event, SCOTUS is not going to get involved in how the Senate procedurally adopts its rules.

[Howlin]

According to the legal scholars that testified before the Rules Committee a few weeks ago, each and every new Congress has the right to set their own rules regarding votes, etc.

In fact, they said that NOT letting each new Congress vote on their own rules denies new Congress members and their constituents rights that are due them under the Constitution.

Needless to say, the Dems don't agree with this.

[mrsmith]

Wow!

I totally disagree. The Court is not going to rule on Senate internal rules unless they have to, and anyway strict constructionists see the Constitution gives the Senate a negative on appointments, which means 50+ have to be against the appointment.

I've found nothing by any Founder, or in the state ratification debates, to support any other view.

[jwalsh07]

I see nothing in the Constitution that says a two thirds vote is needed to change the rules. My prediction if this comes to pass (a rule change made by majority vote), is that SCOTUS will refuse to take the case. I don't think it is justicable. In any event, SCOTUS is not going to get involved in how the Senate procedurally adopts its rules.

I'm signing on to your opinion.

[Torie]

Tator is right about one thing though; it would have been cleaner if the change had been done at the beginning of the session. Moveover, the genie is out of the bottle. The filibuster was once a device to stop liberal legislation. Some day, when the Dems are back in charge, this circuit breaker might be dumped for any legislation (not just judicial nominations), if the bill pending is deemed important enough. At this juncture however, one can't go home again. The die is already cast.

[jwalsh07]

While that may indeed be true, which is the more desirable situation, tyranny of the minority or majority?:-}

[jwalsh07]

Daschle will take it to the Supreme Court and win.

I don't think so, it is a political question that is best judged by the voters.

[Torie]

I don't like the filibuster, but then, I was on the "liberal" side on some matters that were filibustered by "conservatives," including the civil rights laws (since monsterized to a considerable degree by the courts, and politicians pandering to special constituencies). In any event, I have enough faith in our culture, that we can withstand whatever majority impulses emerge from time to time that are questionable, particularly with SCOTUS there to keep a watch.