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 ...
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.
O'Connor, who was a Reagan appointee, was a greater problem than Souter; and you are forgetting that the black justice appointed by Bush I, Thomas, voted against affirmative action on both cases, very decisively and very eloquently.
I also don't understand your statement that Patriot Act or Jose Padilla were "liberal" assaults on the Constitution; in both cases, the government is simply granted police power to protect us from terrorism. I thought it was the leftists who were screaming about Patriot and Padilla.
A perfect example of tyranny by a minority and an example of why fillibusters are not the wonderful things they're cracked up to be.
The political question of who the nation wants to occupy the Presidency is settled at the polls. The President, barring cause, should be given great deference in appointing his cabinet and judges.
The answer to a President appointing those not compatible with American values is to defeat him by a majority of senators or defeat him and his party at the polls.
Chuck and the boys have made it quite clear that people who believe as I do are not welcome in the judiciary. Screw him and the fillibuster.
Voting on this issue is like voting on an instant replay. The result was known.
Hmmm? Because it's their duty to show up for the work they were elected to do? Think about how angry people would be if sports teams that knew they were going to lose just decided it wasn't worth it to take the abuse. People would scream for their heads, and they should with these elected politicos as well. This is the Texas twaddle all over again, and shows the emotional maturity of the Dims.
At worst it will go to the Supreme Court to decide if a new Senate is bound by the rules of an old Senate. Prominent legal spokesmen have said that the constitution does NOT bind a new Senate to the rules of the previous Senate. To do so is to make the old rules have the force of an amendment to the constitution without following proper amendment procedures. (In other words to say they cannot change a rule is to make the rule have the force of a constitutional amendment.)
This Supreme Court has members who want to retire.
They will vote 5-4 or 6-3 that a new Senate is not bound by the rules of an old Senate. They will say that each new Senate, by constitution, is entitled to establish its own rules.
ABSTRACT: Catherine Fisk Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; Erwin Chemerinsky University of Southern California ...... The filibuster in the United States Senate imposes an effective supermajority requirement for the enactment of most legislation because sixty votes are required to bring a measure to a vote over the objection of any senator. .... They first conclude that a judicial challenge to the Senate rules that permit it would be justiciable if brought by proper plaintiffs. They then conclude that, although the filibuster itself is not unconstitutional, the Senate rule that prohibits a majority of a newly elected Senate from abolishing the filibuster is unconstitutional because it impermissibly entrenches the decisions of past Congresses.
Collins has shown herself to be a pretty good team player on these matters.
Chaffee for sure can be bought by the dims. I wouldn't be surprised if he switches parties befre the next election because he can't win a primary in RI ever again. Republicans in RI have vowed to vote for the dem rather than Chaffee if he runs again. You heard that here first.
Snowe may well vote with the dems.
However, Miller will definitely vote witht the pubbies and Nelson and Breaux may well join him.
That kind of talk scares the daylights out of me. A lot of things could happen in the next 17 months, and if the media and the Dems have their way something will. In politics, overconfidence is never your friend.
Great rebuttal. It's always amazing to see how people omit a great deal of facts in attempt to score points by being right.
I also don't understand your statement that Patriot Act or Jose Padilla were "liberal" assaults on the Constitution; in both cases, the government is simply granted police power to protect us from terrorism.
I use the term "liberal", because in both cases, individual rights have fallen to the all mighty federal government, in direct violation of the original intent of the Constitution. Although some liberals are professing to be upset about these issues, I have trouble believing that they would be too upset, if klinton was in office. After all, growing the power of the federal government, beyond the bounds of the Constitution, is and always has been a liberal ideal.
As far as the rest of the SCOTUS judges and district judges are concerned, it seems that we can no longer count on even the so-called conservative judges. Personally, I think that all judges should be non-lawyers. Then, if they can't understand the law, the law must be too complicated for common people to understand and the related law should be changed or cases tried under those overly complicated laws could be thrown out. Such a plan would force Congress to simplify our laws and allow the jury to function in its proper manner - determining both guilt or innocence and whether or not the law should apply to the case at hand.
Well, not quite exactly see my post #165:
But the key is two-thirds of the senators PRESENT AND VOTING, not just elected!! Here comes the 24/7 fillibuser we've been waiting for.
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.