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...
Wasn't he just up saying that he is for an up or down vote?
Bond just brought up the Memos that the dems had outlining how they were going to deny votes to Bush's nominees!!!
GOOD!
Agreed. Too big an ego, media darling wanna be.
Yep! I guess he is one of the ones that wants to become a HERO, by coming up with a compromise to SAVE THE SENATE!!!
Kit is a good man! He is smacking them around pretty good!
The Constitutional Convention considered at least three alternative options to the final Appointments Clause: (1) placing the power in the president alone, (2) in the legislature alone, (3) in the legislature with the president’s advice and consent.
On June 13, 1787, it was originally proposed that judges be “appointed by the national Legislature,” and that was rejected; Madison objected and made the alternative motion that appointments be made by the Senate, and that was at first approved. Madison specifically proposed that a “supermajority” be required for judicial appointments but this was rejected. On July 18, Nathaniel Ghorum made the alternative motion “that the Judges be appointed by the Executive with the advice & consent of the 2d branch,” (following on the practice in Massachusetts at that time). Finally, on Friday, September 7, 1787, the Convention approved the final Appointments Clause, making the president primary and the Senate (alone) secondary, with a role of “advice and consent.”
See: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts
The convention SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED and REJECTED and enshrined in the Constitution THEY RATIFIED that a supermajority was NOT required. They specified in that ratified documents the specific times a supermajority is required. No amendment to that Constitution has been ratified, so simple majority stands as The Law for presidential appointment. See two other articles in post#37 for the rest of the argument.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1406147/posts?page=37#37
HARDBALL!
Kit Bond is GREAT on C-Span right now.
"And now Stallball with____, let's play stallball!"
The original Constitution has been changed many times by laws which define it. For example: In 1790, Congress passed a Law which said that only the Federal Government shall make Treaties with the Indians. Prior to that, the Original States had the right to deal with the Indians in their own State and the Treaty power referred to Federal Lands such as the Northwest Territory. The Federal Government usurped the Power of the States at that point. I don't believe "Indian" treaties specifically are even mentioned in the Original Constitution.
I'm listening to Bond now. He has facts that should resonate even w/the casual listener.
Guess I need to "read on" in your post. I see that you did point out that Frist hadn't accepted Rule XXII. Sorry about that.
As for the stopping of debate, a motion to table passes on a simple majority, and also serves to stop debate - or if a majority rejects the motion to table, then to keep talking.
Riddick's notes that treaties cannot be so disposed on a simple majority.
This is EXACTLY what needs to be drummed in at the senate - Democrats PUT OUT MEMOS last year on how they would obstruct any and all President Bush's nominees, ideas, bills, etc...They are DESTROYING GOOD JUDGES AND PEOPLE FOR 1 REASON: PETTY JEALOUSY because their party IS OUT of POWER! WHY DOESN"T THIS GET SAID OVER AND OVER: IT's NOT ABOUT THE JUDGES, STUPID!
He's terrific and I don't know why he wasn't on my radar screen before. Jeff Sessions speaking now.
Former Chair of the Judiciary Committee Orin Hatch just came into the room.
WOHOOO ... Jeff Sessions is up
Yes he is and NOW for the first time, a senator is standing up and defending President Bush---saying that it isn't Presidents Bush's fault that these nominees haven't gotten votes, and it isn't Bush's fault that nothing is getting done....
I am glad to hear someone take up for the Pres.
Jeff Sessions, breaking in with question, doing their own version of Reid and Schumer's dog and pony show!!! LOL
A minority DOES pass legislation.
For example, last night I was watching the end of the session with my wife, and I said "Now watch this, dear".
THen Frist, with only the President and a minority representative present on the floor, went through a series of bills.
For each bill he asked the the bill be presented, then asked that they be considered as passed, with unanimous consent.
So in fact multiple pieces of legislation were passed last night with NOBODY voting, and with one senator asking for it.
But that is because the rest of the senators AGREED to let that happen.
So yes, the requisite number of senators (for example, 2/3 for impeachment) could vote to assign a committee to decide, and vote to accept thier decision as final. There would be nothing unconstitutional about it, because it would have been a 2/3 vote.
If the constitution mentioned votes, then the senate would be required to vote. But it doesn't.
Lott clearly stated that he will not compromise!
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.