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."

[rrrod]

i just sent an email attaboy to sen lott.....

[nyconse]

Trent Lott was very different before he was elected Senate leader. As a senator, he was tough. He bought the nonsense- can't we all get along? Lott wanted to continue the Senate tradition of courtesy etc. Of course, a Clintonized Democratic party took maximum advantage.

[autoresponder]

Simple majority only...

[deport]

I have two words for the Dimwits..."recess appointments."

---

Not bad if the nominee wants a job on a temporary basis without pay..... Of the two being filibustered do you think either Owen or Estrada want to resign their current employment for a 'recess appt'?

[rrrod]

naw...i think lott learned a valuable lession..seems he is back to his roots now

[Petronski]

I wish someone could provide definitive proof that this rule change can be approved by a simple majority of the Senate, and that it is otherwise filibuster-proof. The folks at the other site also differ on whether this requires 51 or 60 Senators, and of course from 51 to 60 is all the distance in the world.

[autoresponder]

51 votes only

a simple majority required

[kellynla]

Well the rumor is that Bush may just make the recess appointments. So it will be interesting to see what happens.

[nyconse]

Yep, that's right. I think you are absolutely correct. The Republicans will get the nominees approved and not take a political hit for being partisan.

[Petronski]

From the senate rules:


Rule 15.1. Action on Senate rules

No rule of the Senate shall be added, amended, or repealed except by Senate resolution adopted by the favorable vote of at least a majority of the members elected to the Senate, and such resolutions shall not be deemed to be perfunctory.

Rule 15.2. Suspension of rules

No rule of the Senate shall be suspended except by the favorable vote of at least a majority of the members elected to the Senate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Recess appointments are paid just as any other judge or confirmed appointment is paid.

[mware]

It sounds like what the Russian did to the UN in the 50's to block the entry of the UN into Korea.

Seems to have gotten the same affect too.

[Grampa Dave]

This is truly funny:

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 Sen. Charles Schumer

[Southack]

"Frist said he didn't know when he would bring the measure to the full Senate."

Translation: We're going to slap down the next Democratic Party filibuster of Judges by passing this new rule change and then ramming our guy through.

I like Frist.

[nyconse]

In the end denying judges an up and down vote will be ruled unconstitutional. This will stop the filibuster of judges.

[deport]

Recess appointments are paid just as any other judge or confirmed appointment is paid.

---

Really.... since when? What are you going to do about this little section of the US Code, TITLE 5 > PART III > Subpart D > CHAPTER 55 > SUBCHAPTER I > Sec. 5503.

Sec. 5503. - Recess appointments

(a)

Payment for services may not be made from the Treasury of the United States to an individual appointed during a recess of the Senate to fill a vacancy in an existing office, if the vacancy existed while the Senate was in session and was by law required to be filled by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, until the appointee has been confirmed by the Senate. This subsection does not apply -

[autoresponder]

No

Going "nuke" is calling for thr Senate (leftie) Parliamentarian to state that the Constituion only requires a simple majority to confirm judges.

If he disagrees, vote to overrule him; that only requires a simple majority.

This Senate committee vote today was to bring a bill to the floor to change the Senate rules; this vote will only require a simple majority, or 51 votes with a quorum present.

This explains Chuckie Cheese's troubled angst...

[Petronski]

BID TO END PARTISAN OBSTRUCTION CLEARS KEY SENATE COMMITTEE

Rules Committee vote a "crucial first step in judicial nomination reform," Cornyn says

WASHINGTON – The Senate Rules Committee took an important step toward repairing the broken judicial confirmation process Wednesday, U.S. Senator John Cornyn said following the committee's 10-0 vote to pass Senate Resolution 138. The bipartisan proposal, co-sponsored by Cornyn, would guarantee full debate on nominees, while enabling a Senate majority to eventually hold up-or-down votes—bringing an end to the current obstruction faced by judicial nominees such as Justice Priscilla Owen of Texas and Miguel Estrada.

"This resolution is a reasonable, common-sense proposal," Sen. Cornyn said. "There are at least 26 laws on the books today that prohibit a minority of senators from using the filibuster to permanently block certain kinds of measures. The judicial confirmation process should surely be added to this list. By passing this resolution, the committee recognized that, and took a crucial first step in judicial nomination reform."

Cornyn, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution held a May 6 hearing on the constitutionality of filibusters against judicial nominees, where filibuster reform was first debated. And S. Res. 138 was debated in a Rules Committee hearing on June 5 where Cornyn testified on behalf of the reform. The rule change would gradually reduce the 60-vote requirement on successive cloture votes until a filibuster could eventually be ended by a simple majority. Such a rule would prevent endless delay of judicial nominees, while ensuring the right of the minority to have an adequate debate--the original purpose of filibusters.

"The current filibusters of judicial nominees, done not to ensure adequate debate, but to block a Senate majority from confirming judicial nominees, are unprecedented and wrong," said Cornyn. "This resolution repairs that damage, bringing certainty to the confirmation process: all nominees brought to the Senate floor can be afforded an up-or-down vote."

Currently, in an unprecedented move, a minority of senators is blocking an up-or-down vote for Justice Owen, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, and Miguel Estrada, nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

"There has never been a filibuster of a judicial nominee--now there are two," Sen. Cornyn said. "Further nominees are threatened to be filibustered and we must do something soon or this downward spiral of obstructionism will only grow beyond our capacity for reform. Such failure would be especially troubling, and in fact unacceptable, during the confirmation debate on a future nominee to the Supreme Court. I hope my colleagues will join me in approving this bipartisan measure when it reaches the Senate floor for a vote. Judicial nominees, now and in the future, deserve no less."

The resolution now moves to the full Senate for a vote. A majority of the Senate is sufficient to approve a rules change. Under Senate Rule 22, debates on a rule change can be ended by a two-thirds vote. However, Cornyn’s May 6 hearing on the constitutionality of filibusters against judicial nominees demonstrated the widely-held view shared by legal scholars and Vice Presidents across the political spectrum that a prior Senate majority cannot constitutionally forbid a current Senate majority from changing the rules if it wants to do so.

Cornyn chairs the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights & Property Rights, and is the only former judge on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He served previously as Texas Attorney General, Texas Supreme Court Justice, and Bexar County District Judge.