Senate Committee Passes 'Nuclear Option' Filibuster Rule

CNSNews.com ^ | 6/24/03 | Jeff Johnson

[MJY1288]

Didn't GWB say he would re-nominate Pickering?

[Howlin]

I watched some of the hearings on this a couple of weeks ago; according to almost all the "experts" who testified, the way the law reads each and every new Congress is suppose to be able to decide for themselves just how many votes it will take to move something onto the floor.

The "rule" only changed when the Democrats began to realize they were losing control. Now they're trying to act like it's etched in stone.

The rationale for "each Congress setting their own rules" is that new members of Congress shouldn't be bound by rules voted on when they weren't there; they said it wasn't fair to the constituents who voted the new members in.

[Howlin]

Yep.

[TLBSHOW]

Go Trent GO

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Anyone else think that this change will just bite us in the ass when it comes time for us to filibuster liberal judges?

No.

1) Republicans typically don't have the stones to confront the dims with harsh measures.

2) We need to fight today's battles today, else there may be no need to worry about tomorrow.

[TLBSHOW]

ping

[FairOpinion]

It's about time they start behaving as the ruling party and stop letting the Dems push us around and obstruct everything R-s try to do, defining the agenda by their obstructionism.

[Grampa Dave]

Lets hope that this works!

[BreitbartSentMe]

The full Senate must vote on the resolution before it can take effect. Rules changes require only a simple majority - 51 votes - to pass, but opponents can filibuster the resolution under a special rule that would let only one-third of the senators block a vote on the proposal.

However, that's one-third of the senators PRESENT AND VOTING, unlike the cloture vote, that needs two-thirds of the elected senators to pass it. The requirement of needing two-thirds of the senators PRESENT AND VOTING should lead (FINALLY) to the 24/7 fillibuster we've all been longing to see. If they have to stay in the chamber, hour after hour, and keep voting on it, we should be able to peel off a few votes.

[MeekOneGOP]

Go for it Cornyn/GOP !!

Senate Committee Passes 'Nuclear Option'
Filibuster Rule

Excerpt:

CNSNews.com previously reported, along with other national news outlets, that there had been a filibuster of a judicial nominee when, in 1968, 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats opposed the elevation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortis to the position of chief justice of the United States. It has since been learned that Fortis' nomination was withdrawn when only 46 senators agreed to support for the nominee.

Currently, a minority of senators, composed entirely of Democrats, is blocking the nominations of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia and Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, even though both nominees have the support of at least 51 senators. Democrats have also threatened to filibuster the nominations of Carolyn Kuhn to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and Alabama Attorney General William H. "Bill" Pryor to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals if their nominations are brought to the floor.

But Senate Resolution 138 (S. Res. 138) would reduce the number of votes required to break the filibuster of a judicial nominee by three each time a subsequent cloture motion is filed. On the fourth such vote, 51 senators could "invoke cloture," ending debate within 30 hours and forcing a confirmation vote.

Daschle said Tuesday that he wished Republicans would not force the issue.

"It is a very irresponsible and dangerous path to take," Daschle said, "and I would hope that [Republicans] would recognize the precarious circumstances under which that would be offered and would decide not to."


Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Texas or General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Cornyn calls the resolution "a reasonable, common-sense proposal" and hopes his colleagues will look past partisanship to what is best for the nation's judiciary and for the efficiency of the Senate.

Even the usual BWAHAHAHAHA! does not properly express the sarcastic humor that this statement creates.

The only aspect of the nation that the RATS care the slightest bit about is whether they are running it or not.

[MeekOneGOP]

Ping some more Texans to post #50 also !

With apologies if any double pings. . .

Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my Texas ping list!. . .don't be shy.
No, you don't HAVE to be a Texan to get on this list!

[BradyLS]

It can always be repealed, I suppose.

[MeekOneGOP]

I have got to post this again.

THIS is what the 'RATS would call a FILIBUSTER PRECEDENT ???? Something that would NOT pass a straight up and down VOTE ??? SHEESH !!!

CNSNews.com previously reported, along with other national news outlets, that there had been a filibuster of a judicial nominee when, in 1968, 24 Republicans and 19 Democrats opposed the elevation of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortis to the position of chief justice of the United States. It has since been learned that Fortis' nomination was withdrawn when only 46 senators agreed to support for the nominee.

The Dirty 'RATS !

[Satadru]

Has he cleared the judiciary committee?

[HatSteel]

Actually I don't care.

I care more about the constitution. It is set up to allow a simple majority vote to confirm presidential appointees. We should change it LEGALLY or we should follow it.

[HatSteel]

Yes, he can make a recess SC appointment. The problem, of course, is that it must be redone every new session of the Senate AND it won't outlive the president who does the appointing.

We need a permanent solution. Not a temporary one.

[4integrity]

Re Dems up for election next year getting nervous....these are exactly the people we should be flooding with emails and telephone calls. We, the people, need to DEMAND the full Senate vote on the judicial nominees. Filibusters are wasting our tax dollars and I'm sure the time spent on the filibusters could be better spent by the "good" Senators on other important business. Call the Senators on the Judicial Committee, as well as, the Senator from your State.

[Teacher317]

Undoubtedly... unless we can keep the Dems out of power for a few more decades. Here's to hoping!

[4integrity]

Agree. But we need to be careful, we can't afford to have this back fire on us. Isn't it amazing how it's ok for the Dim liberals to nominate and confirm their compatriots who have very liberal views but the Repubs are not allowed to nominate conservatives! We need an all out grass roots campaign to get the Senators to do their job. If they're against the nominees, state their case and then let the full Senate vote.