[davidosborne]

I have been busy all day, but I recorded the entire session on DVR.. i plan to take some time to zip through it shortly... any speeches in particular that were of particular intrest?

[dts32041]

You mean the pubbies have rolled into little fecal balls and the demo rats aren't playing with them like the scarabs they are?

[SevenofNine]

That too funny ROFL LOLOL!!

So if you going say General Hospital who is Sonny OH GOD please don't say Charles Shumer LOL!

[ONETWOONE]

If I can't have an up or down vote, regardless who is President, I'm through voting. It's plain and simple. The rats are complaining what this nuclear option would do harm to the Senate. Gag me....Look what they have already done to it. A few power brokers stopping the will of the people. Republican leadership don't let us down. If you do, there will be droves of us looking away the next time or looking for another independent party.

[restornu]

Robert Bird traded his KKK Sheets for a

Bird gives the Marist Salute!

The Times profile of Byrd is accompanied by the photo above by Doug Mills with the caption: "Senator Robert C. Byrd, after speaking at a MoveOn.org rally last month in Washington, defending the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees." Only a fellow as supremely lacking in self-awareness as Senator Byrd can miss the inadvertent allusion to the black power salute of the late 1960's in Byrd's gesture, or to the "right on" salute of the radical left of the same period, or other more remote historical precedents that Senator Byrd himself loves to invoke against his Republican opponents. Sunday, April 3, 2004

War Blog By FrontPage Magazine FrontPageMagazine.com | April 4, 2005

[beyond the sea]

Won't be able to watch, but I am thankful to all you excellent FReepers for passing along your impressions of events.

Stay tough, Republicans. Don't give in.

[beyond the sea]

Right now I'm watching CNN present their four minute "bio" of Janice Brown on their "news" show. It is nearly completely and solitarily a hit piece.... "combative, extremist ......etc". From this four minutes you would think she is the worst.

I hate the liberal/socialist/Dem media!

[greasepaint]

Is there some reason that the Republicans don't force
the Democrats to mount a real filibuster?

My other suggestion is, the Republicans should
introduce a motion of no confidence
in rules adopted by earlier Senates.

[OXENinFLA]

Thurs. PING!!

[AFPhys]

Breaking the Rules: The Framers intended no more than a Senate majority to approve judges.

Here's the article I mentioned in Post#2671. It IS from NRO, and it DOES contain the side-by-side comparison and the dates that the judicial appt's question was brought before the Constitutional Convention.

It is too easy to lose information on FR nowadays - even if it has been posted here...

Someone Please post this early on in the live thread tomorrow - I have an early meeting and think it should be looked at by many. I have to go now... toodles... Excerpt:

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.”

Obviously, this question is something that the Framers carefully considered. The Constitution and Supreme Court decisions are quite clear that only a majority is necessary for confirmation. Neither the filibuster, nor a supermajority vote, is part of the Advice and Consent role in the U.S. Constitution. Until the past four years, the Senate never did otherwise.

After discussion, the Framers of The Constitution clearly intended majority advise/consent approval of the Senate in this case to be sufficient, and wrote it that way, and ratified the document in this form.

Up until now (two years or so ago), that was always understood, and it was the only provision ever voted on in the history of the country regarding this issue. If they wish to change that, the Senate and House must muster a 2/3 majority to start to AMEND the Constitution.

That is why C. Borden Grey pointed out that the filibuster was NOT available during the Clarence Thomas process.

Paragraph from Bill Kristol's May 9 column:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/551vzoao.asp?pg=2

This is why the filibuster has historically not been used on nominations. This is the constitutional logic underlying 200-plus years of American political practice. This is why as recently as 14 years ago the possibility of filibustering Clarence Thomas, for example, was not entertained even by a hostile Democratic Senate that was able to muster 48 votes against him. The American people seem to grasp this logic. In one recent poll, 82 percent said the president's nominees deserve an up or down vote on the Senate floor.

Also, see THIS article by McCarthy on NRO: Confessing Error asserted that filibustering judges did not violate the constitution in November. CONFESSING ERROR. His argument is circuitous enough that it appears to be a legal opinion rather than an easily accessible article, but he has clearly thought about this a great deal now, unlike his earlier writings - his words, not mine.

If you have a mind for legalese and enjoy a challenge, take a look at it.

"...the power of the president to make appointments is explicitly spelled out in the constitution. By blocking it, the Senate is thus effectively denying the executive his indisputable authority." ...

"Filibusters of judicial nominees have always been a bad idea. They are also an unconstitutional idea. I used to think otherwise, but I have not heard an argument that overcomes the structure of the constitution. No matter who is president, nominees deserve an up-or-down vote."

If you put both of these together, the NO FILIBUSTER OF JUDGES argument is certain to win the day in an honest court.

[mainepatsfan]

Let's hope something actually gets done today.

[listenhillary]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1406130/posts

In 1975 the Senators changed the filibuster requirement from 67 votes to 60, after concluding that it only takes a simple majority of Senators to change the rules governing their proceedings. As Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D-MT) said at the time: "We cannot allow a minority" of the senators "to grab the Senate by the throat and hold it there." Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Byrd, and Biden, all agreed.

[InterceptPoint]

Anybody have some insight on the "Back Room Deal" that McPain and other RINOs are trying to work?

I am getting very mixed signals from Fox and other sources. I've heard the deal is dead and also that they're close to a compromise. One or the other must be wishful thinking. I am quite anxious for all of the dealing to end because I think that Frist has the cards and the votes and the only thing that could upset that is some sell-out deal that McPain or one of the other RINOs puts together that will move vote #5 and #6 to the Dems.

Also, it seems very unlikely to me that the Dems will do anything that would force a nuclear option vote unless they believe they have at least some chance of winning it. All the RINOS have to do is just shut up, not divulge their position and the Dems won't be able to count up the votes it takes for them to win. In that case they fold and the RINOS get to preserve their precious filibuster. Seems simple to me so I don't understand why McPain and the rest can't figure that out.

[zook]

New thread: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1406252/posts

In 1995 Democrats tried to eliminate ALL filibusters.

[Mr. K]

If they are going to "filibuster" make them stay there talking 24/7 until they are done filibustering

[meandog]

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.

[Cboldt]

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.

[grizzly84]

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.

[greasepaint]

If the Dems want to filibuster, thats fine,
make them talk 24/7 until they use up their 'turn'.
Then vote.

[Cboldt]

THis is rich. Reid is making the argument that DEMs want all nominees to come out of committee too!