TexasTiger 13,053 Posted May 21, 2005 Share Posted May 21, 2005 Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee's home state objected to (or "blue-slipped") a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton's nominees.But in 2001, when a Republican became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take objections from both home-state senators to block a nominee. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George W. Bush's nominees. In early 2003 Hatch went even further: Senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it could still go to the floor for a vote. Finally, a few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with "Rule IV," which states that at least one member of the minority has to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Jan30.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 TexasTiger, whine all you'd like, but eventually you're going to face reallity and realize that the Dems lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,451 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Tex, I have asserted on several occasions that Politics is Politics. To uphold the whole Federal Govt over 10 nominees, for either party, is just stupid. Why the Dems wont even allow a vote on these nominees is just laughably unfair. To shutdown the govt over ten nominees is just stupid for the Republicans. Personally, I doubt that even one is unqualified or unfit. I have heard arguments on both sides. Bham News on Pryor Looking for a Pryor commitment Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Then there's the Bill Pryor portrayed by liberal special-interest groups. One is smart and level-headed, who holds great respect for the rule of law. As Alabama attorney general, he demonstrated great courage by standing up to the state's biggest demagogue since George Wallace, in the form of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. The other, according to some civil rights, environmental and pro-choice groups, among others, would roll back individual rights and use a federal judgeship to espouse his extreme political and ideological beliefs. "It is very hard to reconcile the two points of view," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said. Actually, it's not. All Feinstein and other Senate Democrats have to do is quit relying on the distorted information of the liberal special-interest groups fighting Pryor's judicial nomination and talk to some Alabama Democrats. They could talk to U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, or Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, both of whom are supporting Pryor. They could even talk to the Alabama Republicans who, according to the caricature drawn by the liberal interest groups, should be supporting Pryor and his alleged far-right extremism but aren't: Former Gov. Fob James and Moore. Pryor crossed swords with James over school prayer, and with Moore over his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building. Pryor did so because he respects the rule of law, no matter his personal beliefs. The truth is, Pryor would make a fine judge, and has shown that in his time on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following a recess appointment by President Bush. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 to recommend Pryor for a lifetime seat on the appeals court, but Democrats again are promising to filibuster his appointment. Republicans have threatened to change the Senate rules to keep a minority party from being able to stall voting on a president's judicial nominees, although Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said he didn't think Pryor's nomination will trigger the fight. Regardless, there's no valid reason Pryor shouldn't be appointed to the post. The Senate, in its constitutional role of "advice and consent" to the president, should confirm him. Bill Pryor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 Tex, I have asserted on several occasions that Politics is Politics. To uphold the whole Federal Govt over 10 nominees, for either party, is just stupid.Why the Dems wont even allow a vote on these nominees is just laughably unfair. To shutdown the govt over ten nominees is just stupid for the Republicans. Personally, I doubt that even one is unqualified or unfit. I have heard arguments on both sides. Bham News on Pryor Looking for a Pryor commitment Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Then there's the Bill Pryor portrayed by liberal special-interest groups. One is smart and level-headed, who holds great respect for the rule of law. As Alabama attorney general, he demonstrated great courage by standing up to the state's biggest demagogue since George Wallace, in the form of former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore. The other, according to some civil rights, environmental and pro-choice groups, among others, would roll back individual rights and use a federal judgeship to espouse his extreme political and ideological beliefs. "It is very hard to reconcile the two points of view," Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said. Actually, it's not. All Feinstein and other Senate Democrats have to do is quit relying on the distorted information of the liberal special-interest groups fighting Pryor's judicial nomination and talk to some Alabama Democrats. They could talk to U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, D-Birmingham, or Joe Reed, chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, both of whom are supporting Pryor. They could even talk to the Alabama Republicans who, according to the caricature drawn by the liberal interest groups, should be supporting Pryor and his alleged far-right extremism but aren't: Former Gov. Fob James and Moore. Pryor crossed swords with James over school prayer, and with Moore over his refusal to remove a Ten Commandments monument from the state judicial building. Pryor did so because he respects the rule of law, no matter his personal beliefs. The truth is, Pryor would make a fine judge, and has shown that in his time on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals following a recess appointment by President Bush. Last week, the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10-8 to recommend Pryor for a lifetime seat on the appeals court, but Democrats again are promising to filibuster his appointment. Republicans have threatened to change the Senate rules to keep a minority party from being able to stall voting on a president's judicial nominees, although Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., said he didn't think Pryor's nomination will trigger the fight. Regardless, there's no valid reason Pryor shouldn't be appointed to the post. The Senate, in its constitutional role of "advice and consent" to the president, should confirm him. Bill Pryor 160550[/snapback] I suspect Pryor is one of the least likely to be filibustered this time around. But the point of this thread is that all the deceptive whining and hand-wringing over the so-called unprecedent "obstructionism" of the Dems with nominees is dishonest and disingenuous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 But the point of this thread is that all the deceptive whining and hand-wringing over the so-called unprecedent "obstructionism" of the Dems with nominees is dishonest and disingenuous. Actually, it isn't either. There has never been such obstructionism over judicial nominees for the appellate level when the majority of the Senate is ready to confirm. The whining is coming from the Dems, who can't seem to grasp the fact that they lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 But the point of this thread is that all the deceptive whining and hand-wringing over the so-called unprecedent "obstructionism" of the Dems with nominees is dishonest and disingenuous. Actually, it isn't either. There has never been such obstructionism over judicial nominees for the appellate level when the majority of the Senate is ready to confirm. The whining is coming from the Dems, who can't seem to grasp the fact that they lost. 160553[/snapback] If the "up or down vote" is the issue, which is what most Republicans claim, then their efforts to prevent those votes before was no different. If the majority of the Senate wasn't ready to confirm Clinton's nominees then there was no reason to hold them up in the first place. They could have let the full Senate vote them down and be done with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,128 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 If the "up or down vote" is the issue, which is what most Republicans claim, then their efforts to prevent those votes before was no different. If the majority of the Senate wasn't ready to confirm Clinton's nominees then there was no reason to hold them up in the first place. They could have let the full Senate vote them down and be done with it. It could come down to how one looks at the matter. An up/down vote of a Clinton appointee could have been seen as an adversarial move, so not brining the nominees to floor could be seen as a gesture of good will on the part of the GOP. Or it could have been an full snubbing of the President, not even giving his nominees the honor of getting to the floor for a vote. As Obi Wan Kenobi said to Luke.... " you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view" Just a little homage to our Star Wars fans on their big weekend. : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn85 432 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 The Republican shouldn't move to change the filibuster rules. They should let the dems. go ahead and filibuster and shut down the government. This will make the dems look even worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,255 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 I suspect Pryor is one of the least likely to be filibustered this time around. But the point of this thread is that all the deceptive whining and hand-wringing over the so-called unprecedent "obstructionism" of the Dems with nominees is dishonest and disingenuous. 160552[/snapback] There is no doubt that Senators in the past have blocked or prevented a President's nominees from getting a proper floor vote. It didn't start with clinton's nominees either. Remember Robert Bork? Whichever party is in control of the Senate sets the agenda. Frist has proposed adding a new rule to prevent filibustering of judicial nominees. It's perfectly within his purview as Senate majority leader to do so. After all, the Constitution states that both houses of Congress are to set their own rules. Also, by banning the filibuster for judicial nominees, Frist has in effect banned all past obstructionist manuevers within the Senate. Neither party will ever again be able to prevent a floor vote from happening for judicial nominees. This is a good thing for the country and I'm behind this 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 I suspect Pryor is one of the least likely to be filibustered this time around. But the point of this thread is that all the deceptive whining and hand-wringing over the so-called unprecedent "obstructionism" of the Dems with nominees is dishonest and disingenuous. 160552[/snapback] There is no doubt that Senators in the past have blocked or prevented a President's nominees from getting a proper floor vote. It didn't start with clinton's nominees either. Remember Robert Bork? Whichever party is in control of the Senate sets the agenda. Frist has proposed adding a new rule to prevent filibustering of judicial nominees. It's perfectly within his purview as Senate majority leader to do so. After all, the Constitution states that both houses of Congress are to set their own rules. Also, by banning the filibuster for judicial nominees, Frist has in effect banned all past obstructionist manuevers within the Senate. Neither party will ever again be able to prevent a floor vote from happening for judicial nominees. This is a good thing for the country and I'm behind this 100%. 160577[/snapback] You're wrong. First, Bork received a vote. He wasn't confirmed, 58-42. As far as the rules go, the Senate can't change it's rules with a simple majority vote as Frist wants to do. His plan is to call the filibuster rules they have operated under for decades "unconstitutional." No reasonable person believes that. But if he succeeds in changing the rules with a simple majority vote, the majority in the future will control the process totally, regardless of who is President. I don't doubt that you're behind it 100%, but you don't really understand what you're behind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,255 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 As far as the rules go, the Senate can't change it's rules with a simple majority vote as Frist wants to do. Reference: Standing Rules of the Senate Kindly refer to Rule V: SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES 1. No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. 2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules. The Constitution empowers the Senate (and the House) with making their own rules. Each new Congress can amend the rules as they see fit. It may interest you to know the former KKK "Kleagle" (Klan recruiter) Robert Byrd (D-WV) orignated the proposal to change the filibuster rules back in 1975 which the Senate then had previously operated under "for decades." Byrd pushed through a rule change to make the cloture threshold a 3/5 majority instead of the previous 2/3 majority. His plan is to call the filibuster rules they have operated under for decades "unconstitutional." No reasonable person believes that. Wrong. There are many reasonable people who agree with Frist. The Constitution states the Senate is to "Advise and Consent" on the President's nominees. That implies a debate on the floor, and then a simple majority vote. Any rational person would agree with this. The filibuster effectively changes this to require a supermajority to achieve Senate "consent" of any nominee. Clearly, this supermajority requirement is over and above the "Advise and Consent" role for the Senate which the Constitution states. But if he succeeds in changing the rules with a simple majority vote, the majority in the future will control the process totally, regardless of who is President. Refer back to the first part of this post: the Senate has always had the power to make it's own rules. Subsequent new Senates can bring back the old rules if they really want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 As far as the rules go, the Senate can't change it's rules with a simple majority vote as Frist wants to do. Reference: Standing Rules of the Senate Kindly refer to Rule V: SUSPENSION AND AMENDMENT OF THE RULES 1. No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. 2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules. The Constitution empowers the Senate (and the House) with making their own rules. Each new Congress can amend the rules as they see fit. It may interest you to know the former KKK "Kleagle" (Klan recruiter) Robert Byrd (D-WV) orignated the proposal to change the filibuster rules back in 1975 which the Senate then had previously operated under "for decades." Byrd pushed through a rule change to make the cloture threshold a 3/5 majority instead of the previous 2/3 majority. His plan is to call the filibuster rules they have operated under for decades "unconstitutional." No reasonable person believes that. Wrong. There are many reasonable people who agree with Frist. The Constitution states the Senate is to "Advise and Consent" on the President's nominees. That implies a debate on the floor, and then a simple majority vote. Any rational person would agree with this. The filibuster effectively changes this to require a supermajority to achieve Senate "consent" of any nominee. Clearly, this supermajority requirement is over and above the "Advise and Consent" role for the Senate which the Constitution states. But if he succeeds in changing the rules with a simple majority vote, the majority in the future will control the process totally, regardless of who is President. Refer back to the first part of this post: the Senate has always had the power to make it's own rules. Subsequent new Senates can bring back the old rules if they really want to. 160587[/snapback] Read what you posted: Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,255 Posted May 22, 2005 Share Posted May 22, 2005 Read what you posted:Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. 160589[/snapback] It doesn't apply here unless Frist was seeking to suspend a rule without notice. Is that what you think is happening? Frist is trying to amend the rules on filibustering and he has given the prescibed minimum of one day's notice. The point is, Senate rules are changed by a simple majority vote -- contrary to your previous assertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted May 22, 2005 Author Share Posted May 22, 2005 Read what you posted:Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. 160589[/snapback] It doesn't apply here unless Frist was seeking to suspend a rule without notice. Is that what you think is happening? Frist is trying to amend the rules on filibustering and he has given the prescibed minimum of one day's notice. The point is, Senate rules are changed by a simple majority vote -- contrary to your previous assertion. 160590[/snapback] Do you have a link to the Senate Rule that states that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,255 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 Read what you posted:Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. 160589[/snapback] It doesn't apply here unless Frist was seeking to suspend a rule without notice. Is that what you think is happening? Frist is trying to amend the rules on filibustering and he has given the prescibed minimum of one day's notice. The point is, Senate rules are changed by a simple majority vote -- contrary to your previous assertion. 160590[/snapback] Do you have a link to the Senate Rule that states that? 160591[/snapback] I provided a link to all the rules of the Senate (i.e. Standing Rules of the Senate) two posts ago. Find what you need in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 Read what you posted:Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. 160589[/snapback] It doesn't apply here unless Frist was seeking to suspend a rule without notice. Is that what you think is happening? Frist is trying to amend the rules on filibustering and he has given the prescibed minimum of one day's notice. The point is, Senate rules are changed by a simple majority vote -- contrary to your previous assertion. 160590[/snapback] Do you have a link to the Senate Rule that states that? 160591[/snapback] I provided a link to all the rules of the Senate (i.e. Standing Rules of the Senate) two posts ago. Find what you need in there. 160596[/snapback] You also indicated that that post addressed the issue. I'll take that as a "no." Try rule number 22: "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUloggerhead 2,255 Posted May 23, 2005 Share Posted May 23, 2005 You also indicated that that post addressed the issue. I'll take that as a "no."Try rule number 22: "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm 160598[/snapback] What you quoted in Rule XXII only refers to the cutting off of debate. The fact of the matter is, the Senate only needs a simple majority to change the rules. The Supreme Court said as much in 1892 in United States vs Ballin: the powers held by each body of Congress are detemined by a simple majority of a quorum, unless the Constitution expressly creates a supermajority requirement. You can take my word for it or look it up yourself if you so desire. Or, you can just wait until Tuesday/Wednesday of this week and watch it live on C-SPAN to see Sen Frist carry through on the Constitutional Option with a simple majority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,053 Posted May 23, 2005 Author Share Posted May 23, 2005 You also indicated that that post addressed the issue. I'll take that as a "no."Try rule number 22: "Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of. http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm 160598[/snapback] What you quoted in Rule XXII only refers to the cutting off of debate. The fact of the matter is, the Senate only needs a simple majority to change the rules. The Supreme Court said as much in 1892 in United States vs Ballin: the powers held by each body of Congress are detemined by a simple majority of a quorum, unless the Constitution expressly creates a supermajority requirement. You can take my word for it or look it up yourself if you so desire. Or, you can just wait until Tuesday/Wednesday of this week and watch it live on C-SPAN to see Sen Frist carry through on the Constitutional Option with a simple majority. 160621[/snapback] Yes, a rule change may only need a majority, but before it can come up for that vote, 2/3's of the Senate need to agree to vote: except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.