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...
The one who is not talking is not telling a lie. :-)
We ALL need to call OUR senators and tell them that this "Compromise Committee" is denying THEM their constitutionally granted rights -- a vote on the floor to advise and consent to the president's nominees.
Yes, I liked it!
I liked his having having the Portraits there!
He sounded firm to me! Lott is not going to buck the party on this!
One of my fine Senators. It looks like he is able to get by without the sling today.
....and DON'T bring a butter knife!
Well, I knew that; in fact, I only trust Freepers now.....LOL. At least I know when I'm wrong, one of you will come along and smack me with the unvarnished truth!
Kit Bond is up now
I need to head out .. my youngest is acting up
If anything big happens .. please ping me?
Thanks
Or the Rule Book!
Sen Kit Bond from Missouri is up....continuing the theme that the DemonicRats are trying to introduce a NEW RULE!!!!!
Bill Richardson. Swing state, tax cutter, secure borders issue...
That's because he already got the snot knocked out of HIM when he tried it a couple of weeks ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/search?m=all;o=time;s=lott
RE: FNC and The "Deal" Just keeping viewers.
It won't happen. RINOS have too much to lose.
I certainly hope you are correct.
Let's not pretend we haven't all been disappointed in the recent past....
The Senate sets their own rules - according to the Constitution. They have established procedures for changing the rules. The GOP doesn't have the votes to do that, so all this "unconstitutional" crap is floating to the top.
I do not agree with your definition of "constitutional".
The constitution says that the Senate shall give advise and consent. It doesn't define a supermajority, so a majority of the senate can represent the senate.
But beyond that, how the majority decides to represent itself is entirely up to the senate. If a majority of the Senate decides that any one senator can lead to the senate denying its consent, the majority has the right. IF the majority wants to, out of fairness, allow 40 senators to prevent consent, that is fine.
If the majority of the senate wants to make the determination of a committee the end of the matter, they can.
What is important in all of these cases is that it must be a MAJORITY of the senate which decides what the rules are for nomination confirmation, NOT 2/3rds, not 60, but a majority.
Now, at the beginning of a session, the majority may decide to bind itself for the term of the session, so a majority may vote to require a 2/3 vote to change the rules later.
But unless they do so, a majority can set the rule for anything.
At the start of THIS senate, the majority and minority, by unanimous consent, agreed to keep the rules of the previous session for THIS session.
EXCEPT THAT there was no agreement on the filibuster rule, so that rule has NOT yet been agreed to by the majority.
Therefore, the majority has the right any time it wants to decide that the rule does not apply, and further could at any time by majority vote make a rule that would apply.
Having a 60-vote rule to end debate if a majority allows it is not different from a majority taking a "sense" vote, and finding 40 people who want to still talk, deciding by majority vote to keep talking.
The key is that, in situations where the senate is given specific instructions to ACT upon the initiation of another body (in this case the executive) the appropriate number of the senate, as defined by the constitution, must have the power to control what happens.
The following twelve members of the United Senate are working behind the scenes to literally forge a compromise of the Constitution:
Senator John McCain (AZ) Senator Chuck Hagel (NE) Senator Ben Nelson (NE) Senator Bill Nelson (FL) Senator Arlen Specter (PA) Senator Susan Collins (ME) Senator Olympia Snowe (ME) Senator George Voinovich (OH) Senator Mike DeWine (OH) Senator Gordon Smith (OR) Senator John Warner (VA) Senator Lindsey Graham (SC) These men and women all took an oath to “uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Now they are violating that oath as they work to compromise the Constitution of the United States by supporting the unconstitutional “right” Senators Reid and Clinton claim they have to filibuster President Bush’s judicial nominees.
ROFL!........well, not really...
Better reread that. Congress can, by statute, have the president appoint without Senate oversight.
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.