LIVE SENATE THREAD: C-Span 2 9:30am EST "The Confirmation vote for Priscilla Owen"

C-Span 2

[ken5050]

Good morning all. Senate convenes at 9:30 am this morning, to vote on the nomination of Priscilla Owen. I've started the thread early, as I have to leave for a few hours, but also to give us a place to start commenting early on the events of yesterday....

[Cboldt]

I don't think the Cowardly 7 will cry foul if the RATs use the filibuster on him.

But will FRIST?

[OESY]

Why Democrats Are The Radicals On Filibustering

The Democrats have recently begun a scare campaign that claims Republicans want to eliminate the filibuster altogether, not just for judicial nominations but also for legislation. This new conspiracy theory states that the GOP will set a precedent on Tuesday that makes it easy for the majority to cast off this particular Senate tradition.



Unsurprisingly, John McCain mouthed this canard to the press:

"We're talking about changing the rules of the Senate with 51 votes, which has never happened in the history of the United States Senate," Mr. McCain said, adding that he was worried that eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominees would lead to the elimination of the 214-year-old parliamentary tactic altogether.

"If you have 51 votes changing the rules of the Senate, nominations of the president is next, and then legislation follows that, and we will now become an institution exactly like the House of Representatives," Mr. McCain [said].


McCain must have fallen asleep during Senate History Month, because the GOP won't be setting any precedent on Tuesday -- only following the four set by Robert Byrd and the Democrats. Byrd changed the filibuster rules four times during his tenure as Majority Leader, abetted in at least one instance by former VP Walter Mondale, who now writes silly op-eds about the danger of such maneuvers to the Republic. Instead of listening to his Republican colleagues and paying attention to the facts, however, McCain continues in his ongoing quest to pander to the anti-Republican sentiment in the press.

No one expects the GOP to eliminate the filibuster for legislation. Legislation originates within the Senate and is therefore an internal process, and the Senate is well within its power to regulate debate on its own terms for that purpose. However, the confirmation of executive appointments and treaties involve the power and responsibilities of the executive branch, and the Senate does not set the rules for those purposes. Those rules are governed by the Constitution, which calls for supermajorities only on specific items -- none of which are judicial appointments. This attempt by Democrats to apply an internal control to an external, interbranch function and Constitutional responsibility amounts to a usurpation of power by the Legislature, and worse, by a minority within the Legislature.

If the Democrats want judicial nominations to require a supermajority, they need to propose a Constitutional amendment to change the rules. That will require a supermajority within Congress and three-quarters of the states to ratify it, an impossible task, given that 214 years of our existence has never shown a need for such a rule. Further, the Democrats will never propose it, because it would expose them as the radicals of this issue, as opposed to their claims of GOP power-grabbing. Instead, they propose to pervert the Constitution and interbranch governance by smokescreens and intimidation -- and for the past two years, the GOP allowed them to get away with it.

That's why the GOP cannot compromise on the use of the filibuster. Any deal which includes its future use for judicial confirmations only endorses it as a legitimate tactic and seriously twists the Constitutional balance of powers. That should never be the basis of any compromise.

-- Captain Ed, captainsquartersblog.com

[AliVeritas]

Hopefully, that's what he's waiting for.

[Cboldt]

Vote started - "On your Mark"

[steveegg]

Voting NOW!

[mhking]

Yeas and Nays are underway...

[Unknown Freeper]

There was a long pause after roll call for Boxer. Does that mean she is not there?

[Coop]

Bolton is not part of the "agreement".

Nope, I look at him as a bonus. And so does Frist, otherwise he wouldn't be risking our "good will" [wink] on the Senate floor with moving his nomination forward at this time.

I don't think the Cowardly 7 will cry foul if the RATs use the filibuster on him.

Maybe not, but other Pubbies will. And IMHO Bolton's nomination will then be withdrawn and all the conservative judges rammed down the Senate's throat, knowing the nuke option is ready to be sprung after their deal was violated. Again, just my two cents.

[Zuben Elgenubi]

"...Zuben, in case you weren't around for the beginning of the thread..."

I'm in and out of the thread, reading about 25 posts at any one time, but missing most of the dialogue. Work prevails but this is very important.

[nina0113]

Do you think I could convince my boss that we need to have medicinal alcohol to kill the germs?

[clintonh8r]

Won't matter what Frist does. The Cowardly 7 are comitted to comity, moderation, and "saving the Constitution."

[EQAndyBuzz]

"The Over/Under for "Yea" votes is set at 57."

81 votes aye on Owen. This will get less and less as each nominee gets put up with Saad getting 48 votes as the last one up.

The usual suspects will vote nay.

Bolton will be a party line vote.

[clintonh8r]

I hope you're right.

[JustaCowgirl]

This vote is a well choreographed dance by Rove and Bush.

STRATEGERY!!!!

I think you forgot at least one dancer in that equation.

[Cboldt]

Hopefully, that's what he's waiting for.

Frist couldn't be more clear. He doesn't want to use the Constitutional Nuclear Byrd option. But he WILL if the Senate refuses to vote on a nomination.

I didn't want to spank my kids either. But sometimes it was necessary in order to correct their behavior. As long as they behave, no spanking.

[ken5050]

If they past 4, then Reid can say that the Dems have been cooperative..before then filabuster one..he's trying to construct, er fabricate, a record

[kabar]

I predict that Hitlery will vote FOR Owen, and FOR Brown, and Against Pryor.

FOR women and minorities. You are probably right, but the Dems may try to keep approval below 60 votes for confirmation. The envelope please.

It is interesting to note that Hillary voted to confirm Condi Rice. Akaka, Hawaii; Bayh, Ind.; Boxer, Calif.; Byrd, W.Va.; Dayton, Minn.; Durbin, Ill.; Harkin, Iowa; Kennedy, Mass.; Kerry, Mass.; Lautenberg, N.J.; Levin, Mich.; and Reed, R.I. voted no.

[Coop]

I hope you're right.

I guarantee I might be!

[Bahbah]

I love that picture of Cheney with that beatific smile on his face behind those two weasels.

[AFPhys]

I've been with prairie (wnd others with her take) long enough and in enough situations to reject your statement that she will "reward by blaming the Pubbies". There is exactly and ONLY one difference between the attitude she has and mine - that is that I am in "trust/ verify Graham" mode.

If I'm wrong - I'll be really really wrong and slink away a while to lick my wounds.

There are many like her who are very fearful, and with good reason, that this was a moronic sellout.

We won't know for a few weeks which view is accurate. When we do, we'll all pull together in the same direction.