Idiot GOP Senate Set to Shaft Estrada?

rushlimbaugh ^ | 2/28/2003 | rushlimbaugh

[TLBSHOW]

I don't understand the arguments against it. I would appreciate it if somebody could explain what the harm is of a cloture vote. I have asked repeatedly for that explanation.

I have posted it to you a lot here it is again...from that fox news story;;;;;


The decision to call for a "cloture" vote on an appellate court nominee would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."

[TLBSHOW]

I would appreciate it if somebody could explain what the harm is of a cloture vote. I have asked repeatedly for that explanation.
.......


and this was from Rush as to why this must not happen..from his story above...

Fox News reported that the GOP planned to call for a cloture vote on Estrada next week knowing they'd lose it.

That would effectively amend the Constitution - illegally - to read that you need 60 votes instead of 51 to get a judicial nomination through.

Rush Limbaugh.....2/28/2003

[xsmommy]

thanks for the clarification.

[Diddle E. Squat]

Does Shirley McClaine believe that you were Preston Brooks in a previous life?

[TLBSHOW]

And my opinion is if we let the rats do this President Bush won't get anything done that he wants as the rats will do this to him over and over unless its something they want in effect making his next two years worthless.

[aristeides]

The decision to call for a "cloture" vote on an appellate court nominee would overturn more than two centuries of Senate precedent and rewrite the constitutional definition of "advise and consent."

I take that to contain two points: (1) holding a cloture vote would overturn Senate precedent and establish that 60 votes are needed to confirm a judge; and (2) holding a cloture vote would unconstitutionally change the meaning of "advise and consent."

On point (1), I think the Democrats have already set the precedent by mounting the filibuster. I think failing to hold the cloture vote and thereby admitting defeat would much more serve to consolidate that precedent than holding a cloture vote, hopefully followed by further debate and cloture votes.

On point (2), if the Constitution's "advice and consent" language doesn't permit filibusters, then the filibuster of Abe Fortas in 1968 was unconstitutional. I've never heard anybody argue that. I don't think it's a plausible view. I would be willing to bet that courts would reject the argument. I don't believe such a view of the Constitution is consistent with allowing filibusters of legislation, which I believe the courts have upheld.

[aristeides]

So we need to find some way to make the RATs pay for mounting the filibuster. The best suggestion for how to do this that I know of is the one I heard from Hugh Hewitt: give recess appointments to judges who are much more right-wing than the judges for whom the administration has sought Senate confirmation.

[TLBSHOW]

(rules making a filibuster harder, but so what? And don't tell me that it's not "practical)

Be glad I did not put this in as I was going to...

[TLBSHOW]

Now after over 200 posts you are on to the meat of the matter, (what to do to stop the rats) Not how to stop Rush Limbaugh and fox news...

[deport]

And my opinion is if we let the rats do this President Bush won't get anything done that he wants as the rats will do this to him over and over unless its something they want in effect making his next two years worthless.

---

Don't they already have that right (filibuster) according to Rules of the Senate?.... Thus if they choose they can do it to any bill being debated....

Prior to 1917 how did they bring an item to a vote if unanimous consent wasn't availble on it? How many Senators could stop anything from being voted on. Today it takes 41 but how many prior to 1917?

[aristeides]

Prior to 1917 how did they bring an item to a vote if unanimous consent wasn't availble on it?

Before 1917, one senator, if he was willing to filibuster, was enough to stop legislation. The cloture rule was adopted in 1917 because what Wilson called "a little group of willful men" (11 senators) were blocking Wilson's proposal to arm American merchant ships against German submarine attack.

[Jhoffa_]

He has a stuttering problem. I admire him, he has not let it bother him one bit!!

No, absolutely not..

Allot of intelligent people stutter. I am told President Lincon was a stutterer.

[justshe]

Wouldn't another concern be that you would be establishing a precedent that COULD change the method of passing or blocking all future legislation/nominations/etc. from a simple majority to a super majority vote?

Isn't the USE of the filibuster/cloture with more frequency over the last 25-30 years a lowering of the bar...moving the Republic closer to a Constitutional change by fiat?

Just random thoughts while consuming my first cup of coffee, so might not be succinct.

[aristeides]

I do not think filibusters of appointments are that serious a matter, since the Constitution provides the obvious remedy of recess appointments.

[deport]

Again..... how does cloture post 1917 with a requirement of 41 Senators become worse than the original requirement prior to 1917? Come on 'gifter' .... step up and explain

[Political Junkie Too]

Why not? Doesn't it give people the opportunity to point out and to learn that the story is false? How is that not doing good for people?

Do you think I'd learn more about you by lies spread by others? Would I learn more by disproving the lies?

Remember when other people who were trashed by the government and cleared exclaimed, "Okay, no where do I go to get my reputation back?"

-PJ

[TLBSHOW]

There is no lies here the point Rush makes is clear and his stand on this is clear and its clear to me that the Gop was going to cave until the outrage from Rush against the GOP was on his show for almost 2 hours yesterday and the calls started to pour in about the peoples outrage.

[aristeides]

"Lies"? Isn't that harsh? Is there some reason you are so sure people do not just make honest mistakes?

Speaking of getting one's reputation back, seems to me your accusation of lying does a lot more to destroy people's reputation than the stories here that you don't like.

[justshe]

*****I do not think filibusters of appointments are that serious a matter, since the Constitution provides the obvious remedy of recess appointments.*****

And the argument that recess appointments COULD term-limit the appointee...effectively changing a life-time appointment (dependent upon Presidential discretion) as decreed by Article 3 of the Constitution...?

Still sounds like a Constitutional amendment by fiat, no?

[Howlin]