Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Senate Committee -- Without Democrats -- Votes to Limit Filibusters
Associated Press/Fox News ^ | 6/24 | AP

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 ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Free Republic; Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: appointments; dickdurbin; filibuster; judicialnominees; peta
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-359 next last
To: jackbill
I also found Rockefeller's report on this at a cabinet meeting online at the Ford museum. It's a fun read though kinda confusing. I'm putting it on the thread for reference.

HERE

321 posted on 06/24/2003 7:40:19 PM PDT by mrsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 306 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

322 posted on 06/24/2003 7:45:23 PM PDT by alwaysconservative (This tag line is optional)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 307 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.

323 posted on 06/24/2003 7:46:56 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 320 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
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.

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.

324 posted on 06/24/2003 7:52:07 PM PDT by alwaysconservative (This tag line is optional)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 310 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
I wonder if the GOP can get 50 votes for this. If Snowe, Collins, Chaffee and McCain exit (you know McCain is going to love the spotlight on this one), with Miller going the other way, we are one vote short. I don't think Spector will bail at least pending the primary. That boy is sort of boxed in (and he is on record as favoring a litmus test to bounce SCOTUS nominees that don't sign onto Roe ex ante). I feel his pain.
325 posted on 06/24/2003 7:58:35 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 323 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
Sort of DOA.

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.

326 posted on 06/24/2003 8:01:07 PM PDT by HatSteel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Torie
McCain is an American above all else. Next in line is his maverick streak. I don't see him cozying up to the old boys club. But, as you know, he's surprised us all before.

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.

327 posted on 06/24/2003 8:05:56 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: Torie
You gonna handicap the senate races this time around?
328 posted on 06/24/2003 8:06:30 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 325 | View Replies]

To: ken5050
.....but since W has six more years

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.

329 posted on 06/24/2003 8:17:29 PM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Maybe. I don't like handicapping the Senate, because it is such a wild card. The House is pretty much cast in stone. Any swing will be minimal, although my current prediction is that the GOP will pick up three seats barring retirement surprises. But who cares? I think I was off one in my count. The Dems only need 3 GOP votes to kill this, not 4, assuming Miller crosses over. I don't see Breaux crossing (I can't see him dumping the filibuster really). Thus, maybe it comes down to Collins and Nelson of Nebraska. The Pubbies do have 51 seats right? I am having a senior moment. Let's see, they won Missouri, Minnesota and Georgia, and lost Arkansas, which makes plus 2 from 49 to 51, with Miller making 52.
330 posted on 06/24/2003 8:18:04 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies]

To: Theodore R.
It only takes sixty votes if everyone is present? I think the rats will not be able to hit the campain trail very hard if they have to cover this spread at all times. It just takes a couple of selected rats to leave town and a couple of missing Republicans to sneak back for a vote.
331 posted on 06/24/2003 8:22:22 PM PDT by BOBWADE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: autoresponder
There's no leverage, none, against Chaffee. Were he to be sufficiently offended to switch parties, he would hold the seat with exceptional ease. Even if he didn't >want< to switch, tactically he might have no choice if a strong conservative opposed him in the Republian primary, since that conservative could actually >beat< him when only the registered Republicans are allowed to vote. He would win the Democratic primary easily.

Snowe and Collins are more secure against a conservative Republican challenger, but less secure were they to switch, so I suspect they'll just keep on being RINOs and we should just keep on being happy they are willing to do so, given the alternative.
332 posted on 06/24/2003 8:27:43 PM PDT by only1percent
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: alwaysconservative
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.

Great rebuttal. It's always amazing to see how people omit a great deal of facts in attempt to score points by being right.

333 posted on 06/24/2003 8:31:04 PM PDT by NYC Republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Torie
I should have added McCain. He is a total wild card. Of Collins, Nelson, and McCain, I suppose the GOP needs two of the three (assuming my math is right, and Snowne and Chaffee bail, which of course would put huge pressure on Collins is Snowe bails). How would you handicap that? Dicey no?
334 posted on 06/24/2003 8:34:16 PM PDT by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 330 | View Replies]

To: alwaysconservative

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.

 

335 posted on 06/24/2003 9:33:48 PM PDT by Action-America (The next country to invade Europe has to keep France!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 322 | View Replies]

To: Common Tator
"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. "

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.

336 posted on 06/24/2003 10:15:37 PM PDT by BreitbartSentMe (Make that EX-democrat!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Agreed! I'm not going to get excited until I see some RESULTS - not just rhetoric.

Estrada would be a nice start.
337 posted on 06/24/2003 10:17:42 PM PDT by Humidston (Do not remove this tag under penalty of law)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: mrsmith
bttt
338 posted on 06/24/2003 10:33:10 PM PDT by ImphClinton
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Torie
Chaffee might bail.

He likes to play God.

Snowe would not dare; neither would Collins or McCain.

That puts it in Cheney's hands.
339 posted on 06/24/2003 10:39:47 PM PDT by autoresponder (. . . . SOME CAN*T HANDLE THE TRUTH . . . THE NYT ESPECIALLY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 334 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
ssshhhh!!!!! They're saving that vote for the secret meeting. lol
340 posted on 06/24/2003 10:49:20 PM PDT by rewrite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300301-320321-340341-359 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson