Posted on 05/26/2005 3:43:28 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket
Bolton fails to get the 60 votes to invoke cloture. Dem filbuster is on.
filibuster - Informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.http://www.senate.gov/reference/glossary_term/filibuster.htm
The words "filibuster" and "debate" are 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 taking the vote from debate on the matter. When a matter is brought before the body it can be disposed of in several ways. It can be ruled as not in the scope of the body's charter. It can be tabled by a simple majority for a variety of reasons, at a variety of points in its consideration. But tabling a point does not terminate it, the table is a place to rest. Of course, a tabled amendment to a motion dies if the motion is approved without the amendment.
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.
The Senate has divorced the vote from the debate, using the cloture device. They have done this by permiting and ENGAGING in extended debate, followed with refual to vote. The body of the Senate exhibits parliamentary dysfunction.
HATCH: Only the Senate itself can exercise its constitutional role of advice and consent on the President's judicial nominations. That is, only a majority of Senators can exercise that role. I make this point so strongly because the minority is claiming the right to exercise this body's role of advice and consent strictly by the minority....
The minority can say this is a narrow effort focused on a few appeals court nominees. It is not. This is about the entire judicial confirmation process. It is about rigging that process so the minority can do what only the majority may legitimately do in our system of Government: determine how the Senate exercises its role of advice and consent.
109th Congress - Page S5739 - May 23, 2005
109th Congress - Page S5741 - May 23, 2005
HATCH: On April 8, 2003, Senator Bennett, my colleague from Utah, asked the then-assistant minority leader, Senator Reid, how much time the Democrats would require to debate the nomination fully. This is what he said:
There is not a number of hours in the universe that would be sufficient [to debate this nominee].They did not want to debate Justice Owen, they wanted to defeat her. Debate was not a means to the end of exercising advice and consent. It was an end in itself to prevent exercising advice and consent. The majority leader has made offer after offer after offer of more and more time, hoping that the tradition of full debate with an up-or-down vote would prevail. That hope is fading, as Democrats have rejected every single offer.
Finally, last month, the minority leader admitted that ``this has never been about the length of the debate.'' That is what the minority leader said. It has never been about the length of the debate. That was said April 28, 2005.
And btw, I haven't read this whole thread---in fact very little of it, but it was reported on Fox yesterday (two reliable freepers described it, I did not see it) that DeWine and Graham had worked on the agreement at the request of the WH to insure the CO stayed on the table.
I watched the press conference when the agreement was announced and now not-coincidentally I noticed and posted at the time that both were very emphatic that they had been prepared to vote for the option the next day and would again if the occasion arose.
Evidently it was very shaky if the votes were there to vote on it on Tuesday so this agreement was able to be used as a backup.
But it cannot be said enough that Graham never ever said he would agree that the circumstances existed where a filibuster of judicial nominees would be justified. He said they'd have to be a crook or crazy---and that is obviously not going to be the case with this president's picks.
The confusion arose, I believe from his asserting some nominees wouldn't come out of committee and/or if they did they would fail on the up or down vote and he said there is one person he would vote "no" on.
And yes, he said from the start the people of his state would be upset but he was willing to take it.
And there's the explanation for why the WH would have let it be known, if the story is true that Graham and DeWine crafted the best possible deal on behalf of the WH since this group had decided to cobble one out.
It really has not been the disaster some have made it out to be. I was aggravated, too, but like some other cooler heads, we could see that all was certainly not lost and we even speculated that the votes had not been firm enough to proceed with the CO vote and that in part it might be a good thing this agreement gave them more time without losing face.
The language and outrage on this forum and evidently amongst some groups out there have far out-weighed the perceived wrong here.
So, you may be right. You'll have to excuse me if I don't rub my hands with the evident glee you feel at the prospect of him having to endure it.
My favorite, though, are the brainiacs who have targeted DeWine's son for retributution. What vicious nonsense.
You're right.
It would have been a real loss had the option come up for vote and not passed. Evidently we're hearing that was a real concern.
Now it remains in the arsenal and the dems have proven beyond any doubt to be obstructionists.
He will now, I am sure. I was just pointing out on another thread that prior to this week, talk of the CO was applied to only judicial nominees and I see Frist's remarks confirm that.
Thank goodness the CO remains an option as they refine and clarify the language and hopefully shaky Republicans who were on the fence on voting for it had their eyes opened last night. There were just a very few that were not reliable and that are needed.
The problem with recess appointments are that they are only good for a year and cannot be renewed.
I don't think the president is inclined to moot the issue for the Senate.
You could be right, though it might serve to remind some Senator's about the separation of powers. As much as this mess is about a sub-group of Senators trying to wrestle power from the leadership of the Senate, the bigger fight is about them trying to grab an Executive power.
I thought that time limit was only for judges, because otherwise they would Constitutionally have a lifetime tenure.
hey , ... I see myself as a coolhead[LOL!!] , we'll see if Frist has "juice" by the 2nd & 3rd weeks of next month,right?? I'm sure our guys have a better plan than I could conjure up,however,when it looks so raggedy,and donors sense the timing wasn't played well,the talking points will be a real "plate of spaghetti" ,... I'm not saying that lil' ol' me will be able to sense if our guys are making it up along the way with no plan,...I GO to FR!!
It's good you know what I got that, cuz I sure don't. LOL I know I had it before Free Republic was around.
You may be right.
Nope, you're not right. The recess appointment provision in the Constitution applies to Ambassadors as well, with the same time limitation in Article II.
Eric 'Otter' Stratton: Flounder, you can't spend your whole life worrying about your mistakes! You f*&%$ up -- you trusted us! Hey, make the best of it!
Hey Lindsey, you getting this.
There are several under currents. First McCain wants to be President and and Lindsay Graham wants to be Vice President. They felt sure that lining up the RINOs to make a deal would make them heros. They knew the main stream media would paint them as the heros who saved the senate.
Otheres want to make sure the leadership knows they have to have them and they must be praised and treated nice to survive. Others want to trade votes for things they want. All of the ones who are playing games are getting the surprise of their life.
Imagine their surprise when they got contacted by nearly every state party official who was being swamped with mail, email and phone calls saying they were through giving money to the GOP. Imagine the mail, email and phone calls McCain got from the rank and file. Imagine what DeWine and Voinovich found out the hard way. The Ohio grass roots hates them. Imagine Dewine when he finds out DAffy Duck could run in next years Republican Senate priamry and defeat Dewine. The Republican Senators are hearing from the Grass roots. They should never have a moment when their state and senate offices are not barraged with angry voters. State parties should get inundated with angry members of the base calling to complain.
I think the reaction to the traitorous Seven was beyond their belief. You can bet they have a new understanding of the lack of power of the media and a new fear of the power of grass roots.
So there is lots going on in the background. The seven Rinos who thought they were on their way to fame and political fortune are trying to figure out where they stand and where they want to go.
The biggest problem for both Republicans and Democrats is both believe the main stream media controls public opinion. It does not. And with the Internet and C-SPAN it has less influence. EVeryone of the RINOS needs to be thinking.. how can I get the voters off my back.
The Democrats are united in wanting to take down President Bush. McCain and his band of seven are intent on taking President Bush down too. O
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.