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

Skip to comments.

(DAY-2) LIVE U.S. SENATE "Nuclear" THREAD: for judicial nominations: C-span 2 - 9:30 am EST
http://www.c-span.org ^ | http://www.c-span.org | http://www.c-span.org

Posted on 05/18/2005 10:21:08 PM PDT by davidosborne

Text Credit to Ken5050: DAY-1 THREAD

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...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government
KEYWORDS: 109th; 8hoursearly; constitutionaloption; democratnukereaction; filibuster; may19th2005; obstructionistdems; reidsnuclearreaction; showdown
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 3,721-3,738 next last
To: All

Feingold is honking me off! Get him out of here!


101 posted on 05/19/2005 5:57:24 AM PDT by defconw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Rumierules

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1406089/posts


102 posted on 05/19/2005 5:58:10 AM PDT by Bungarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

Be sure to watch Tom Coburn and Sam Brownback. Excellent.


103 posted on 05/19/2005 5:58:39 AM PDT by cotton1706
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: All

to current caller, CRY ME A RIVER! I can't take any more Feingold, going back to Fox let me know when he's done!


104 posted on 05/19/2005 5:59:46 AM PDT by defconw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: defconw

second that, Feingold gone at last


105 posted on 05/19/2005 6:00:58 AM PDT by not-alone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: All

Fox is reporting that there is no deal yet!


106 posted on 05/19/2005 6:01:27 AM PDT by defconw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

When will the public understand that the Constitutional option DOES NOT kill a fillibuster--It kills the SUPER MAJORITY RULE! Nowhere in the Constitution is a super majority rule mentioned, in fact it wasn't around until 1917 (as a protest against President Wilson wanting to establish a WW1 version of FDR's Lend-Lease) and at that time it was a 3/4 (or 67-33 in today's terms) rule--and THE RULES of the Senate were again changed in the 1960s (to the lower 60-40 standard) because of SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS using fillibusters against Civil Rights legislation.


107 posted on 05/19/2005 6:02:11 AM PDT by meandog (FU-DU lurkers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: not-alone

Praise God, Feingold is sooooo annoying! Hammer is leading the pledge!


108 posted on 05/19/2005 6:02:41 AM PDT by defconw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A REAL FILIBUSTER.... 24hrs a day, 7 Days a week !

From time to time, I ask "how can this be forced?" I'm not asking for an answer here, but whoever would force this needs to think through how to force it. I could not find a "talk or vote" rule, either in the text of Senate Rules, or in Riddick's Senate Procedure, or in any of a number of articles written regarding historical "take to the floor" filibusters. Seems all the talkers did so voluntarily.

109 posted on 05/19/2005 6:03:02 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: defconw; All

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?Class=1

Class 1 (Expires 2007)

Akaka, Daniel- (D - HI)
Allen, George- (R - VA)
Bingaman, Jeff- (D - NM)
Burns, Conrad- (R - MT)
Byrd, Robert- (D - WV)
Cantwell, Maria- (D - WA)
Carper, Thomas- (D - DE)
Chafee, Lincoln- (R - RI)
Clinton, Hillary- (D - NY)
Conrad, Kent- (D - ND)
Corzine, Jon- (D - NJ)
Dayton, Mark- (D - MN)
DeWine, Mike- (R - OH)
Ensign, John- (R - NV)
Feinstein, Dianne- (D - CA)
Frist, Bill- (R - TN)
Hatch, Orrin- (R - UT)
Hutchison, Kay- (R - TX)
Jeffords, James- (I - VT)
Kennedy, Edward- (D - MA)
Kohl, Herb- (D - WI)
Kyl, Jon- (R - AZ)
Lieberman, Joseph- (D - CT)
Lott, Trent- (R - MS)
Lugar, Richard- (R - IN)
Nelson, Bill- (D - FL)
Nelson, Ben- (D - NE)
Santorum, Rick- (R - PA)
Sarbanes, Paul- (D - MD)
Snowe, Olympia- (R - ME)
Talent, James- (R - MO)
Thomas, Craig- (R - WY)


110 posted on 05/19/2005 6:04:53 AM PDT by maggief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

What if, instead of looking for a YES vote, the GOP seeks a "NO" vote? How many votes would be required to postpone, table, or otherwise dispose of the nominee? Could less than a simple majority kill the nomination with a motion to table? No way! Well then, how is it then that less than a simple majority can kill the nomination otherwise?

In reading Riddick's Senate procedure (in a failed attempt to find the "talk or vote" rule), notice that Senate procedure requires 2/3rds supermajority to postpone indefinitely, consideration of a Treaty. That cannot be squared with cloture (technically, because motions to table are not debatable - but it is a higher hurdle thatn the 60 votes recided in Rule XXII)

Likewise then, it would take a simple majority to postpone indefinitely the consideration of a nominee. Not a minority, as the DEMs have been asserting, and as the DEMs have successfully done using the supermajority requirement of (the GOP asked for it!) Rule XXII.

http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/riddick/1441-1608.pdf
Appendix - Forms - and Index (see pp1521- and pp1554-)

The appendix has forms and the phrases uttered by the chair. Compare the form of handling a Nomination (starting at page 1521) with the form of handling a Treaty (starting at page 1554). In particular, that for a treaty, a motion to postpone indefinitely (to not act) requires a two thirds majority.

This implies that a simple majority is required to lay aside a nominee, and that less than a simple majority is not sufficient to lay aside the nominee.

111 posted on 05/19/2005 6:06:03 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

A 24/7 filibuster could be entertaining! "where has my adversary gone....?"


112 posted on 05/19/2005 6:06:05 AM PDT by defconw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: OXENinFLA

Yesterday CSPIN had Bork on so today they have this leftist twit.


113 posted on 05/19/2005 6:06:11 AM PDT by OldFriend (MAJOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH.....INSPIRATIONAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: mainepatsfan
Let's hope something actually gets done today.

If anything is going to happen, it will be between 8:15 and 8:45 PM. That is the last time scheduled for the day, and is controlled by the GOP.

114 posted on 05/19/2005 6:07:44 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: OldFriend

Ah that's it, I usually watch Fox, it's better for my blood pressure! LOL The WJ can get my blood going with all the whiney Democrats! The sky is always falling! They are so dramatic! Buck up babies!


115 posted on 05/19/2005 6:09:36 AM PDT by defconw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: defconw
I was channel surfing when I heard the woman host explaining why the next guest was up.

Just prior to that she was reading something about someone using their senate email to send and/or receive pornography. Anyone hear this?

Wondering who the culprit is.

116 posted on 05/19/2005 6:11:01 AM PDT by OldFriend (MAJOR TAMMY DUCKWORTH.....INSPIRATIONAL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: davidosborne

This CNN report just now say GOP and Dems are striking a deal, Dems approve some nominees in exchange for no nuke. Then again CNN would say that.


117 posted on 05/19/2005 6:11:51 AM PDT by grizzly84
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Is there anyone here who cares whether or not the Democrats have equal time? They never cared about minority rights when they ruled and screwed up this country for 40 years!


118 posted on 05/19/2005 6:12:05 AM PDT by defconw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: All

Chip Reid, in a taped segment on MSNBC, just lead into a sound clip of Frist on the floor. Reid said "Republicans on the floor have accused Democrats of wanting...", trailing into the clip just as Frist said "to kill, to assassinate these nominees". I've heard plenty of crap from the MSM recently, but I have never heard such an outrageous out-of-context segment on a supposed "news" channel in all my life. Does Reid really expect people to think that the Senate Majority Leader, on the Record, would accuse the minority party of actually desiring to murder these nominees? Unbelievable. Reid followed that up with by playing Dick Durbin's response about the "irresponsible" Republicans. I guess it just fits the template.


119 posted on 05/19/2005 6:13:07 AM PDT by mwp99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: grizzly84

That's already been rejected. The last deal I heard about was that all nominees would get a vote in exchange for no nuke option for remainder of session and no filibuster except in extreme circumstances.


120 posted on 05/19/2005 6:13:16 AM PDT by zook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 3,721-3,738 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