Skip to comments.
SENATE ESTRADA FILIBUSTER (Live Thread)
Posted on 02/26/2003 6:33:24 AM PST by RobFromGa
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560, 561-580, 581-600 ... 2,141-2,147 next last
Comment #561 Removed by Moderator
To: StevieB
Reality check for those arguing to keep the Senate in session all night to force the Dems to talk. Just keep in mind that an all-nighter will be tougher on Repubs than on Dems. Without cloture, the only way the Senate can proceed to a vote on Estrada is by unanimous consent, which means that Dems only need to keep one Senator around to object to any unanimous consent request.
Repubs, on the other hand, are the ones who would have to keep talking to keep the Senate in session for a late night. That is because all Dems would have to do is suggest the absence of a quorum and the Senate would go into a quorum call which cannot be waived except by unanimous consent -- which would of course be objected to by the Dems' designated objector.
The Repubs would then have to muster 51 members to come to the floor to answer the quorum call just to get the debate going again. And then it would be the responsibility of the Repubs to keep the talk going because once the number on the floor fell below 51, Dems would note the absence of a quorum, and the procedure begins anew.
This reluctance to file for cloture may be the wrong way to go because filibusters are such a pain in the rear for those trying to stop them. Seems to me Frist would have a stronger case if he had a series of votes clearly indicating a majority for confirming Estrada.
To: woodyinscc
Remember back during impeachment when Bryd got up and gave his speech about the Senate, its rules, its traditions, etc.
Then he turned around after all of that and voted to keep the perjurer in office! I lost whatever little respect I had for him and LIEberman both after their speeches.
Byrd is a nasty, mean-spirited, bitter man today!
563
posted on
02/26/2003 1:13:19 PM PST
by
PhiKapMom
(Bush/Cheney 2004)
To: VRWC_minion
Front-page article in today's Wall Street Journal: "Bush to Seek up to $95 Billion To Cover Costs of War on Iraq".
To: Carolinamom
They should just call it the "Robert C. Byrd Republic of Iraq" and be done with it.
-PJ
To: mdwakeup
Seems to me Frist would have a stronger case if he had a series of votes clearly indicating a majority for confirming Estrada. And those voting against cloture would be on record as having voted to support an unprecedented filibuster for an appointment to a lower federal court.
To: RobFromGa
I am with you -- I just got back as well about 30 minutes ago. I have Byrd on mute! I cannot stand to hear him talk on a good day!
567
posted on
02/26/2003 1:16:17 PM PST
by
PhiKapMom
(Bush/Cheney 2004)
To: Political Junkie Too
Byrd's just afraid his pork will not be available in the coming years. I've read that just about every bridge, highway, and public building in WVa is named for him. At one time he even wanted the FBI headquarters to be in his state. If he's so concerned about costs, why should he not forego the super-duper office now being constructed for him?
568
posted on
02/26/2003 1:18:09 PM PST
by
Carolinamom
(The mute button is my friend.)
To: PhiKapMom
LOL!!! He is talkig to us! He said "and YOU who are looking at this through those electronic lens" what an idiot! talking about how much the war on Iraq is going to cost all of us and even more without the sanctions of international support.
569
posted on
02/26/2003 1:18:42 PM PST
by
Green
To: PhiKapMom
Someone should ask Byrdbrain what the cost for not going to war and not defending this country is.
To: mdwakeup
> "Seems to me Frist would have a stronger case if he had a series of votes clearly indicating a majority for confirming Estrada."
Frist sent a letter to President Bush this morning with 54 (I think) names of senators in favor of Mr Estrada's confirmation. Clearly, he would win if the Democrats would allow the vote.
571
posted on
02/26/2003 1:21:00 PM PST
by
pgyanke
(The private life is dead...now everyone will be judged politically - Strelnikov in "Dr Zhivago")
To: Green
Sen. Robert C. Byrd
Fax your letter to my Charleston office at 304-343-7144;
Call my Washington office at 202-224-3954. If you leave your name and telephone number, your call will be returned as soon as possible;
Call my Charleston office at 304-342-5855
572
posted on
02/26/2003 1:21:53 PM PST
by
kcvl
To: PhiKapMom
They know Hillary is running the War Room to derail this nomination! And I still wonder why.
573
posted on
02/26/2003 1:22:03 PM PST
by
Howlin
(Time to pull the trigger!)
To: mdwakeup
That is because all Dems would have to do is suggest the absence of a quorum and the Senate would go into a quorum call which cannot be waived except by unanimous consent -- which would of course be objected to by the Dems' designated objector. Ahh, but once a quorum call verifies the absence of a quorum, the presiding officer can order the sergeant at arms to compel the presence of the absent Dems. Can't you see Teddy Kennedy being carried into the chamber by the seargenat at arms and his aides?
Anyway, I think the Majority Leader has tthe power to compel the Senate to stay in session by his own order, and no Senator can be absent without permission. If they are missing, he can order the sergeant at arms to drag them to the senate chamber.
To: mombonn; PhiKapMom
I solved that problem - I have a small TV in the kitchen.LOL! I've set up a small kitchen next to my TV.
575
posted on
02/26/2003 1:22:26 PM PST
by
RobFromGa
(It's Time to Bomb Saddam!)
To: Green
Amidst all his scare mongering and "What ifs", Byrd fails to ask one more 'What if'.....namely, WHAT IF WE DON'T TAKE OUT HUSSEIN?
576
posted on
02/26/2003 1:22:52 PM PST
by
Carolinamom
(The mute button is my friend.)
To: Green; tractorman
You guys are right!
Suppose he would rather pay the money to rebuild after we were attacked if we backed down on Iraq.
Did he give the same speech when Clinton kept shooting off all those Cruise Missiles or when we went into Kosovo without asking the United Nations Security Council what they thought?
577
posted on
02/26/2003 1:23:57 PM PST
by
PhiKapMom
(Bush/Cheney 2004)
To: Carolinamom
His primary concern was to the cost to the taxpayers. I say what if those taxpayers aren't around any longer due to not taking out Hussein. Maybe we should turn his concern about money around in a way that he would understand.
578
posted on
02/26/2003 1:24:57 PM PST
by
Green
To: Green
talking about how much the war on Iraq is going to cost all of usDoes anybody ever remember ANYBODY asking Clinton how much HIS 'wars,' if you can call them that, cost?
and even more without the sanctions of international support
Now, I ask you this, if you and I, sitting here at our computers in America, know that the war will be paid for by the OIL in Iraq, why doesn't he know that?
Or does he know that, and is just lying?
I'll take Door Number Two, Monty.
579
posted on
02/26/2003 1:24:58 PM PST
by
Howlin
(Time to pull the trigger!)
To: PhiKapMom
"Then he turned around after all of that and voted to keep the perjurer in office! I lost whatever little respect I had for him and LIEberman both after their speeches."
The shame is they know they can get away with it.
A great majority of Americans only hear the sound bites, if anything at all. They do not know that these phonies just do it for cover.
I feel the same way about Lieberman, and how about his lies on MTP about the over seas ballots? Still, his press is he is a kind, gentle, religious, and honest man
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560, 561-580, 581-600 ... 2,141-2,147 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson