LIVE SENATE THREAD: "Nuclear Wednesday" for judicial nominations: C-span 2 - 9:30 am EST

C-span 2 ^ | May 18, 2005

[ken5050]

Welcome, all you Freepers, to the continuing C-span soap operas about judicial nominations. "The Guiding SEARCHLIGHT, " "As the SENATE Turns, "One NOMINATION to Live" "GERIATRIC Hospital" (for all you Byrd and Lautenberg fans out there). Follow along with us, as the Dems raise the level of histrionics, bloviation, pontification, and all around bad acting to new highs, er, lows...

[Howlin]

It was not a silly comment; it was a STUPID thing to say; after all, he'd been nailed on saying something like that before, so he didn't learn his lesson very well.

The difference in us and the Democrats is that we actually have some standards and we get RID of those who embarass us like that.

There were audible gasps in the room when he said it -- and immediate discussion of that fact that he was finished as leader.

And what has he done to redeem himself? Here are a few examples, just in the last month:

============

Lott "I don't have to work with them (GOP) anymore, they threw me overboard!" (202) 224-6253 Tony Snow show

Posted on 05/10/2005 12:13:36 PM EDT by watsonfellow

Tony Snow just finished an interview with Trent Lott. Senator Lott wanted to respond to an article in Roll Call to the effect that he had crafted a deal to dump certain judges to guarantee others an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. According to an account (I didn't hear the interview), Lott called the report "exaggerated," adding that he has worked with Ben Nelson "from time to time" on a deal, but that the proposed deal "isn't much of a deal at all." Lott also stated that he won't accept criticism from Republicans for working with Democratic senators because "they're the same ones who threw me overboard. I'm free. I don't have to work with them anymore." Lott called the Senate a "dysfunctional institution." Lott may consider himself part of the solution to this problem, but in the context of the confirmation battles that remains to be seen.

==========

And there's more:

The Counsel of Trent (Lott Expects to Be Majority Leader Again in 2007)

"Different things motivate different people," says the Rules staffer. "In the case of Lott, it's anger over the way he was treated by both his fellow Republicans and the media after the Strom Thurmond dustup. He wants his old job back, and he wants to see the look on the faces of people like President Bush and Sen. George Allen when he gets it back."

Lott is known to harbor resentment toward both the President and Allen. The onetime leader believes the former pulled his support for him during the Thurmond kerfuffle; the latter worked behind the scenes against Lott to push the candidacy of Sen. Bill Frist for the leadership post.

Senators Trent Lott and Tom Daschle share a light moment as they go over the last details in their historic power sharing agreement in Lott's office. 1/4/01

[longtermmemmory]

I just saw that on Hanity,

Sen Nelson ADMITTED THE REPUBLICAN SENATORS ARE HIDING THEIR NAMES!!!!!!!!!!

The democrats are trying to give cover to the cowards!!!

I bet Olympia Snow is part of the cabal of country club cowards.


i like that:

Cabal of Country Club Cowards. (needs a photosop image)

[Soul Seeker]

I might feel like it but would I do it? No.

Too stubborn.

[Mo1]

DANG !!

Sorry about messing up that post with the no paragraphs

[Txsleuth]

Yeah, and they showed footage of them coming out from the meeting, but I looked too late and only saw Leiberman, darn.

We know that Chafee, Snowe, and Collins? are the other three?

[Howlin]

If he's in there, then he's lying -- AGAIN -- because he said he wasn't.

[Howlin]

I read that they met with him yesterday at the White House.

[oceanview]

through a GSM cellphone network. The blackberrys are cellphones too, they do voice and data (email, instant messaging), they have keyboards, etc, and can transmit securely.

[gswilder]

I think the theory that has been floated here that the dems will not fillibuster if they know the don't have the votes is very possible. I am sure that is why Frist picked Owens to be the test case, since she seems to have the most opposition. I think it is possible she may not even be confirmed by the whole senate anyway.

However, if the dems decide not to force a fillibuster, why don't 41 republicans fillibuster, and still force a vote on cloture? I wouldn't take the risk of waiting until 2006 and possibly loosing a senate seat or two. Thoughts?

[Mo1]

Dang, he had power like THAT, and he wants the Pubbies not to even get an up or down vote on Bushs nominees?

Nelson said that he thought they should get an up or down vote

[Soul Seeker]

All their names WILL be known and they WILL be punished if they betray us on this issue. Hiding behind the skirts of the Dems and MSM will not save them.

[Cboldt]

I'm don't see that NRO article illuminating the issue in an especially helpful way. All sides agree that when a vote is taken, a simple majority constitutes consent.

What some in the Senate say is that the Senate has no duty to vote at all, and that it can reject a nominee by refusing to consider him or her. Or that the Senate is free to set arbitrary (its own) hurdles for nominees to reach the point of the vote; in todays framework, to navigate a 60 vote supermajority when the proponent invokes the "helpful" tool of cloture.

I see at least two avenues for implementing the desired change. One "within" the Senate rules, and one by an appeal to the Constitutional balance between the President and the Senate in the matter of nominees.

I haven't come up with what I think is a clear expression of making the change by "using the rules," but in my mind it is basically saying that nominees don't fit in the framework of Rule XXII, and that a better approach is to debate, then when all Senators have enough information to make a call in good conscience, to move to the vote. Could the Senate conduct an impeachment trial, then refuse to vote at its conclusion? Of course not. Likewise, when considering a nominee, does it make sense, at the conclusion of consideration and debate, to not take the vote? Of course not.

The appeal to the balance of powers argument is pretty well fleshed out elsewhere.

The parliamentary procedure is very much up in the air. There are several possibilities. I even though that the nomination could be subjected to a motion to table, a motion to scuttle if you will. Motion to table is not debatable. If the motion is to table/reject the nominee, and the motion fails, it means the nominee is NOT rejected. Voila. Consent ;-)

Seriously, that wouldn't work, but it does hint at the possible parliamentary complexity. All of which will be avoided, and the issue can remain unresolved for a future day, if the DEMs provide unanimous consent when Frist asks unanimous consebt to move to the vote on the nominee.

[Jim Noble]

We have a long way to go to get a Senate that will welcome more Scalias and Thomases, much less Priscilla Owens and Janice Rogers Brown.

We have to do what the Democrats have done-make every Red State Senator a fanatic who has to cover up his right-wing fanaticism to get elected, but who will act like Kennedy or Schumer (but for our side) once they are in.

The 45 Democrats are razors-determined to destroy what's left of the Constitution and institute socialism over the objections of the people.

Among the 55 Republicans, how many are like that-15? 20?

More Tom Coburns, fewer Arlen Specters-we have to start now.

[Mo1]

Nelson didn't want to give names

[oceanview]

unless some republicans switch votes as part of a "compromise deal", every single one of these judges would receive 50+ votes in the full senate.

[prairiebreeze]

I'm going to jump on this thread and post an off-topic link to a transcript on radioblogger.com where Hugh Hewitt skewers Terry Moran about what he said to McClellan at the last WH presser. I haven't finished it yet but it looks like Terry's head exploded, LOL!

http://www.radioblogger.com/

[Mo1]

All their names WILL be known and they WILL be punished if they betray us on this issue. Hiding behind the skirts of the Dems and MSM will not save them.

YEP .. that info WILL come out sooner or later

It's just a matter of time

[Txsleuth]

Are you saying that the C.C.C.C. is the group that would vote against the Byrd Option, or are the group of 6 that is meeting to find a compromise?

[prairiebreeze]

Meant to put you on #2836 ping too!

[Soul Seeker]

Alan's whining that the minority that is the minority by deference to their own extremism cannot run the Senate as the Majority.