Replies

The word "debate" is used, but the dysfunction is "refusal to vote." Every Senator knows where they stand on the nomination. There is no need for further persuasive debate.

In parliamentary proceedings, there is no way to separate debate from the vote. A matter is brought before the body, and can be disposed of in several ways. It can be tabled by a simple majority for a variety of reasons (could the Senate table the nomination of officer by the President?), or ruled as not in the scope of the body's charter.

If the matter is taken to debate, the debate will follow the rules of the body. Sometimes, cloture is required or desired. Its function is to reduce the amount of debate before taking the vote. Its function is emphatically NOT to avoid the vote altogether. Cloture is used to give power to the objections of members who have not had opportunity to speak, or who remain undecided on the matter because they have not heard enough debate. The need for debate is to faciltiate individual decision making, and once the members are firm in their convictions, the time for voting is ripe.

What the DEMs in the Senate have done is permit extended debate, followed with refual to vote. This is parliamentary dysfunction.

I predict Owen winning confirmation, but with fewer than 60 votes. If she gets more than 60 votes, the cloture charade is blown wide open, even to people who are clueless about the whys and wherefores of parliamentary procedure, Senate Rules, and the Constitution of the United States of America.