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.
Who knew that Frist could be so cold and calculating? I Love it! Here's Reid, someone get the cheese!
It is logically false to equate a failure to obtain unanimous consent to vote (or in the alternative, cloture) with a simple minority vote to reject the nominee. Under the first, the President is denied the appointment of officers of his choosing, and the denial is implemented by less than a simple majority of Senators. Under a rule of "to reject the nominee, you must vote on the nominee," a simple majority of Senators would consent to the officers the President has nominated. The difference to the President is between having, and not having the officer of his preference.
Welcome to Free Republic!
I don't know if it's new, but I've noticed that Reid has taken to call Senator Frist "the distinguished Republican leader" rather than the MAJORITY LEADER.
I'm not interested in reasons. The operating plan is NO JUDGES, NO BUCKS, NO EXCUSES, NOT NOW, NOT EVER.
If you're too principled to accept my money for something that violates your morals, fine, I admire principles. There's an election coming up, and I will vote morals, not expediency. Lots of folks like me, too.
The presence of a protocol for postponing voting on a Treaty, other than unanimous consent or cloture, raises a question about whether a cloture motion is proper in the context of Nominations. Cloture abuse gives the power to "terminate the nomination" to a 2/5th minority. What a contrast with the 2/3rds supermajority required tp put off voting on a treaty.
How does handling of a nomination tie in with handling of a treaty? Both involve powers granted to the President. The president has the power to negotiate treaties and submit them to the Senate for their advice and consent. The President also has the power to appoint judicial and executive officers of *his* choosing, with the advice and consent of the Senate.
By invoking the tool of cloture (to withhold voting) in the context of a nomination, the Senate has erected a supermajority hurdle of ITS OWN CHOOSING, using a Rule that did not exist until 1917. The hurdle in that rule has been amended on two occasions. If the Senate is free to erect and change the hurdle for nominees, what's to prevent the Senate from setting it at 2/3rds, or 3/4th, or 9/10ths? Or to prevent a SINGLE Senator from withholding the vote - exactly the way the Senate worked before the cloture rule? According to some Senators, the Constitution gives the Senate the power to make its own rules. They are right, but they over-reach when they apply their rulemaking power to nominations.
The Senate is free to make rules that affect only it. It cannot make rules that diminish the power of another branch. The Senate has a DUTY to advice and consent, confirm or reject, each nominee. It cannot consider and then refuse to vote on a treaty. It cannot consider a nominee, and then refuse to vote on the nominee. Even though the Constitution does not say the Senate has the duty, it could not conduct an impeachment trial and then refuse to render judgement. To do so would neutralize the impeachment power of the House.
In contrast, the power of each House to make its own rules clearly applies to matters PURELY internal to its workings. The limitation is in the language of the Constitution, "shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members ... may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
Good morning to you!
I am babysitting at my daughters house and the TV is in one room and the computer in another---yikes!
Oh, no, all Reid has got are Vanderberg's comments which Levin has already read to us. Reid=pathetic. It is not 60 years ago, Reid, or you and your gang would never have done what you have with these judges. YOU made this necessary.
A ping alerts a poster(s) to a certain thread that may be of interest.
Hear, hear.
I'd like to see any of US try and deal with the likes of Chafee, Snowe, McCain, Specter, Collins, Hagel, etc. Would any of us have the patience required? I don't think so!
We go to DefCon 1 tomorrow. I can't wait!!
Love that graphic!!
Why thank you, I get to take quick peeks at it while I'm
working. I like to keep myself as informed as possible and I love Rush!!!! Listen to him on a transistor radio while I sit in my little cubicle. This all really hacks me off the the Democrats! I have e-mailed Lugar, he used to send the auto reponses, until I told him that until he and the rest of the Republicans ACTUALLY LEAD and acted like leaders, I will send no more money. Now I get more to the point responses from him.
thank you
That's a good way to stay in shape running from room to room!
During research of Riddick's Senate Procedure (in a so-far failed attempt to find the "talk or vote" rule), I found that the Senate requires a 2/3rds supermajority to indefinitely postpone voting on a Treaty.
Senate procedure has no method to dispose of a treaty by not voting on it. Postponing a treaty vote indefinitely (effectively the same as passing it back to the President) takes 2/3rds, and does not dispose of it. It is easier to reject a treaty, with 1/3rd of the votes, than it is to postpone the vote indefinitely, which takes 2/3rds of the votes. And in the case of rejection, the dispostion flows from a vote on the treaty, not a procedural step that determines whether or not they vote on the treaty. A Senator can't hide behind unanimous consent or cloture to kill a treaty.
How has he had "to be dragged kicking and screaming"? He didn't have the votes to do it until January, and I've NEVER heard him say that he was against the "nuclear option". It was a matter of him trying to gain the high ground of "reasonable behavior", and trying to demonstrate to the American people that he'd made every attempt to work with Democrats before this happened.
If you can show me how he's been dragged "kicking and screaming" into this against his will, I'll listen, but more of the "He is a loser/RINO because he didn't invoke the nuclear option on the first day of the new Congress" nonsense will be disregarded.
:-)
I was thinking last night, esp. about Frist's vote tonight on compelling the Senator's attendance at tomorrow's vote. I guess he's concerned the the Democrats might make a 'chicken run' and try to avoid voting on cloture, as it needs 3/5 of all senators, not just those present. If that happends, any idea what will happen next? What would be Frist's best move?
A) Ask the president of the Senate for a ruling whether a fillibuster is appropriate for judicial nominees, get his ruling, and ask for a vote on it (requires majority of those present?)
B) Ask for a change in the senate standing rules and specify more clearly how advise & consent role is to be carried out, i.e. lowering cloture vote threshold on subsequent votes, etc. (I believe that needs 2/3 of senators present and voting - not hard to do if the democrats are 'MIA')
See post #10
Only a fool undercuts his leader on the eve of battle. Frist is no more a RINO than Jim Jeffords is a loyal Republican.
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.