Posted on 05/23/2005 8:14:11 AM PDT by OXENinFLA
Senate Debate on Nominations Today the Senate resumes debate on the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The Senate will conduct its first roll call vote of the week at 5:30pm. Follow the C-SPAN networks & C-SPAN Radio for the debate on Senate rules & judicial nominations. MON., 11:30AM ET, C-SPAN2
--------------------
ORDERS FOR MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005 -- (Senate - May 20, 2005)
[Page: S5714] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 11:30 a.m. on Monday, May 23. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and that the Senate then return to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, provided that the time from 12 noon until 1 p.m. be under the control of the majority leader or his designee and, at 1 p.m., the Democratic leader or his designee be recognized; provided that floor time then rotate between the two leaders or their designees every 60 minutes until 4 p.m., at which time the majority leader or his designee be recognized until 4:45 p.m., to be followed by the Democrat leader or his designee from 4:45 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.
The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.
--------------
PROGRAM -- (Senate - May 20, 2005)
[Page: S5714] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to serve as a circuit judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Monday will be the fourth consecutive day the Senate considers the Owen nomination.
Over the past 3 days, a number of Members, on both sides of the aisle, have come to the floor to speak on the nomination. We have conducted over 25 hours of debate, and we will continue on Monday. Moments ago, we filed a cloture motion on the nomination, and that will ripen on Tuesday of next week.
On behalf of the majority leader, I remind my colleagues the leader has announced our next rollcall vote will occur Monday afternoon at 5:30. That vote will be on a motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request Senators' attendance. Senator Frist will have more to say about next week's session on Monday.
I love that smile.
Just darn!!!!!!!!! I'm eating my dinner!
Wall the Dems are voting for the motion, so why didn't Reid give UC? and don't say it's because he's such a putz..
that smile makes me forget i am a happily married woman!!
I just save you a few calories, my friend.
;-D
The orignal question was "what about all those quorum calls during the day," and my answewr was responsive to that.
The significance of this "live quorum call" is not clear to me yet, except that it will go down in the record - and that may be the extent of its significance. This taking of attendance is "on the books."
YOU'RE MUZZLING ME. YOU'RE NOT LETTING ME SPEAK, THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!
I hear ya! I'm so pleased that so many of us think the VP is a sexy guy
I go by Hatch's voting record and his ratings by respected conservative groups. Hatch is no RINO by any accepted measure. He is one of the more conservative members of Congress. That said, I agree he talks to much and is too civil to the Democrats.
badd-ah-BING!
Had to make dinner (darned kids want somthing to eat....)so I've been away from this thread......what's the deal with bringing everyone to the senate?
I just read the comments on Hillary. Any other outstanding moments today?
They all vote "Aye" because all it means is "I'm here."
This is taking of attendance on the record, unlike other quorum calls which, if you check the Congressional Record, are not recorded. They are vitiated, made to appear as if they never existed, poof, gone.
Those really are his only failings, but he is a good man. I think the dems pushed him way too far this time. He has done so much to be accomodating, and this is how they treat him. He can't be happy.
Oh I'm not calling Orin a RINO .. just taking a guess as to why some would
Like I said .. I like Orin .. but there are times he needs to just shut up
He just said mr. Allen NO?
You missed Byrd talking to dead people. :-)
That's the pic of Hillary when she was on the committee researching the process of impeachment. She recommended that President Nixon NOT be represented by counsel in the impeachment hearings. In a book written by the leader of the committe head (forgot his name) afterwards, Hillary Rodam was the ONLY ONE NOT recommended for furthe employment, and he explained why. Does anyone have more complete details about this?
Imagine, if you will, that a Democrat President nominated a judge whose constitutional and policy views were, by any measure, on the extreme left fringes of American society.
Let’s assume, for example, that this nominee had expressed strong sympathy for the position that there is a constitutional right to prostitution as well as a constitutional right to polygamy.
Let’s say, further, that he had attacked the Boy Scouts and the Girl Scouts as organizations that perpetuate stereotyped sex roles and that he had proposed abolishing Mother’s Day and Father’s Day and replacing them with a single androgynous Parent’s Day.
And, to get really absurd, let’s add that he had called for an end to single-sex prisons on the theory that if male prisoners are going to return to a community in which men and women function as equal partners, prison is just the place for them to get prepared to deal with women.
Let’s further posit that this nominee had opined that a manifest imbalance in the racial composition of an employer’s work force justified court-ordered quotas even in the absence of any intentional discrimination on the part of the employer. But then, lo and behold, to make this nominee even more of a parody of an out-of-touch leftist, let’s say it was discovered that while operating his own office for over a decade in a city that was majority-black, this nominee had never had a single black person among his more than 50 hires.
Imagine, in sum, a nominee whose record is indisputably extreme and who could be expected to use his judicial role to impose those views on mainstream America. Surely such a person would never be nominated to an appellate court. Surely no Senate Democrat would support someone with such extreme views. And surely Senate Republicans, rather than deferring to the nominating power of the Democrat President, would pull out all stops—filibuster and everything—to stop such a nominee.
Well, not quite. The hypothetical nominee I have just described is, in every particular except his sex, Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the time she was nominated to the Supreme Court in 1993.
President Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsburg on June 22, 1993. A mere six weeks later, on August 3, 1993, the Senate confirmed her nomination by a 96-3 vote.
Sheets was a riot, I hear ... missed it.
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.