Could you elaborate on that? Why couldn't a point of order motion be made on the Bolton nomination?
Surely you don't have to reserve point of order motions in advance of a session.
You're putting me to work here. I can't remember where I heard or read the info I gave you. I'll get back to you.
I'm baaack! I could not find it. Considering the tactic used by Byrd in '79, it is possible that Frist put something in the Senate record months ago & there is no way I'm going to comb through all of that to find what I was looking for.
So let me say this: If my Democratic colleagues exercise self-restraint and do not filibuster judicial nominees, Senate traditions will be restored. It will then be unnecessary to change Senate procedures. Self-restraint on the use of the filibuster for nominations--the very same self-restraint that Senate minorities exercised for more than two centuries--will alleviate the need for any action. But if my Democratic colleagues continue to filibuster judicial nominees, the Senate will face this choice: Fail to do its constitutional duty or reform itself and restore its traditions, and do what the Framers intended.or ... Click here & navigate to #23Right now, we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease. So I reserve the right to propose changes to Senate rule XXII, and do not acquiesce to carrying over all the rules from the last Congress.
As a public servant who has twice taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution, I cannot stand idly by, nor should any of us, if the Senate fails to do its constitutional duty. We, as Senators, have our constitutional duty to offer the President advice and consent.
Senator Frist, January 4, 2005
109th Congress - Page S14 <- Top of 2nd Column