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...
Boooo. Hillary absconded with the silverware.
Coming form the same rocket scientist that entered into the 'power sharing' agreement....rmfe.
LOL at least he is not in charge of this fight!
Well there are many choices, but only one queen! lol
I knew it. I said yesterday that Kristol was involved in this.
10 GOP, 8 DEM.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm
But you are right. In order to move to the vote, one of the minority must agree.
IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE
The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a rollcall vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.
He says he is no longer working with the group that is trying to come up with a plan to avoid voting on the Constitutional Option.
He is going thru the History of how we got here....good stuff!!!
The "blue slip" IS unconstitutional if that and that alone causes a non-vote. It is fine as far as the "advice" of that senator goes, though.
A committee reviewing the candidate and not allowing a vote on that candidate IS unconstitutional, though their review and recommendations is not.
ALL candidates the president nominates for executive or legislative positions must be voted on, with a simple majority requirement for confirmation. Open vote - with accountability for that vote - no where to hide.
That IS my argument. It is the only stance supported by the Constitution. I will stand by it.
That you did.
It will....but I just got this terrible feeling that Hiilary will step to the floor and become the great compromiser. She knows the pro-abortion base has been dwindling and the Women's and black base AND Hispanic base has been damaged by this. Dems aren't as stupid as she thinks. Now, if they could keep these folks totally uninformed, nothing would be lost.
Regardless of whether or not they wanted to go on the record or not doesn't change the fact that Abe Fortas was filibustered and does not allow one to make the claim that he did not enjoy majority support. One can say that he probably didn't enjoy it, or that he didn't garner 50 votes. However, it is just as clear that the Founders did not intend to require a supermajority for judicial confirmations. Thus, the filibuster of Abe Fortas and of any other judge is unconstitutional. And Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2 clearly states that "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member." That is the only argument that needs to be made. Tradition is a fine thing, but if the tradition is wrong, then it is ok to change it. Slavery was a tradition. It was wrong. We changed it. At one time in various cultures, human sacrifice to appease angry gods was traditional. It was wrong and has been changed. The filibuster, while almost never used against judicial nominees, is wrong. We are about to change it.
Also, the argument that if the filibuster had been used, then it would have been used against Clarence Thomas or Robert Bork is a non-sequitor. Just because you don't use an option, even if you don't get what you want or what should be, doesn't mean it isn't still a viable option. It may simply mean that the Dems didn't invoke it simply because there weren't enough members willing to invoke the filibuster even if they were willing to vote against him. Voinvich used the same reasoning to vote Bolton out of committee without recommendation. If the argument was logical, then we could make an argument that because we didn't sentence murderer X to death means that the death penalty wasn't an option.
I wonder if it may simply be that they're aiming for the appearance of propriety- gentlemanly behavior. The appearance of working for a bi-partisan compromise means they can argue down the road "we tried to reach an agreement..."
He is in CYA mode
He says he is no longer working with the group that is trying to come up with a plan to avoid voting on the Constitutional Option.
Who?
"In return for the Dems allowing floor votes on TWO of President Bush's judicial nominees, McCain promised that he will be Hillary Clinton's VP nominee in 2008."
But we know who is working on the "Compromise Committee."
And Gore "inadvertantly" took the bust of Lincoln.
-PJ
Chester the Molester Lott talking about Pickering. Boy that guy creeps me out.
I believe it. :-)
LOL, You had me going there for a moment!
In return for the Dems allowing floor votes on TWO of President Bush's judicial nominees, McCain promised that he will be Hillary Clinton's VP nominee in 2008."
I listened to McConnell talk about offers that they had made to get past this nonsense, one of which he called the Frist Fairness doctrine or rule. It would guaranty that judicial nominees would not be held up in committee. How do you all think Spectral will take to that?
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.