Posted on 11/20/2004 11:59:01 AM PST by forest
Never one to mess up a good story by sticking with the facts, the liberal media in Washington refuse to tell us much about the inner-workings of the Senate. Oh sure, they are quick to carp about anything they think may be a misstep by a Republican member. But that is about as deep as their news reports usually go.
No one ever reports that few senators fully understand, or even read, any of the bills before voting. Nor are we often informed that an inordinate amount of each senator's time is spent seeing lobbyists and other campaign contributors, rather then doing things that may benefit constituents.
The Clinton Impeachment Trial is an illustrative case in point: No senator -- not even one! -- bothered to look at any of the background information (evidence) of the case. The "trial" was fixed before it even got to the Senate. To the one hundred elected ones, it was nothing but an inconvenience because it was the first time they all had to be in their seats, present and accounted for. Even then, some slept there.
Now we read news reports that the newly strengthened Republican majority in the Senate might not allow filibusters to block action on judicial nominees by President Bush. Most reports seem to imply this is a bad thing recently invented by those hard line Republicans and that the minority party could be deprived of its right to "advise" the executive branch by obstructing appointments.
Senate Majority leader, Senator Bill Frist (R-TN), told the Federalist Society: "One way or another, the filibuster of judicial nominees must end. The Senate must do what is good, what is right, what is reasonable and what is honorable."
What might that be, Senator? Senate rules are so ridiculous that now just one senator can "say" they are filibustering and all deliberation on that matter comes to a halt. That done, the "filibustering" senator can then return to his office and take a nap -- insured that his obstructionist activity for the day is completed.
Senator Frist said, "this filibuster is nothing less than a formula for tyranny by the minority," which is true, up to a point.
The Senate Rules Committee said they plan to gradually lower the threshold for filibusters against judicial nominees until a simple majority would allow a final vote. That is not likely to ever happen, though, because Senate rules require a vote of 67 out of 100 to approve that change. So, fat chance.
In a way, the liberal media is correct on this. Just barely, though. Yes, Senate rules are such that a senator can get the floor and keep on talking. That is called a filibuster. In one form or another, that has been part of the Senate rules for as long as there has been a Senate.
What changed recently was the fact that now a senator only has to "say" they are filibustering -- not actually stand up in the Senate chamber and talk -- to stop all action on a matter.
That is wrong. Very wrong.
That must be changed.
If a senator wants to filibuster on a topic, I say let him or her get up and start talking. As long as they are talking, Senate business is halted because a filibuster is in progress. But, when that senator runs out of steam and leaves the microphone, that filibuster has then ended.
Let's let the American people decide. If those socialist Democrats want to filibuster the Bush nominees, let them take the microphone and start talking. No more of this "we say there is a filibuster" and then go back to the office. Let the American people watch them on C-SPAN squirming at the microphone because they need a break.
In other words, cut the foolishness. Any senator may filibuster. Under the Senate rules, that is their right. Some of us will even watch on TV and laugh. In fact, we might even start Internet betting pools on how long they can last.
The point is, if those craven Democrats want to filibuster, let them do it, but make them filibuster the old fashioned way. That will quickly cut that foolishness off at the pass.
For information on what duties the Constitution actually tasks to the Senate -- and how officials in the Legislative Department corrupted those instructions over the years -- see "Analysis and Interpretation of the Constitution," Article I.[1]
1. <http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/browse.html>
Senators spend much time seeing contributors.
No senator bothered to look at the evidence of the Clinton Impeachment. The "trial" was fixed before reaching the Senate.
Democrats want to "advise" the executive branch by obstructing appointments.
Just one senator can say filibuster, thus stop business, then go back to his office to sleep.
Filibuster is OK, but when the Senator leaves, it is ended.
This article is incorrect in the number needed to change the Senate rules. At the beginning of a session they only need 51 to impose new rules. Three times this has been the ruling from the chair and three time it has been upheld, going back to when Nixon was VP. If this were not true, the current Senate could impose it's will on future Senates.
Well, there are options to kill a Senate filibuster on judicial nominations with just 51 votes, short of actually changing the rules. It is not clear that the filibuster can be used against judicial appointments and all the GOP has to do is appeal to Cheney, call a vote and rule that it can't be done.
RE: "The Clinton Impeachment Trial is an illustrative case in point: No senator -- not even one! -- bothered to look at any of the background information (evidence) of the case."
I believe Fiedor is wrong on this factoid. I believe this is only true of the RAT senators. For instance, I'm fairly certain that Jon Kyl (R-AZ) viewed the evidence.
Constitutionally, the President is entitled to the "advice and consent" of the Senate. That means an up or down vote on his nominess. Silence is not an option.
"For instance, I'm fairly certain that Jon Kyl (R-AZ) viewed the evidence."
I'm just guessing that he's your Senator? Just curious.
Not what I said. I said the President is entitled to their "advice and consent". If their advice is no, then then nominee is rejected.
"And nothing in the Constitution says they have to act on his nominations."
I say the wording of Article II, Section 2 means that they must. I'd like to see this taken to the USSC.
"If that was the intent of the drafters, they would have included something similar to the pocket veto provision."
The President does have the power to make recess appointments.
Not what I said. I said the President is entitled to their "advice and consent".
If one is entitled to A and B, then one is entitled to B.
"If that was the intent of the drafters, they would have included something similar to the pocket veto provision."
The President does have the power to make recess appointments.
That power pertains only to vacancies that occur during the recess of the Senate, not to those that merely exist during such recess.
Yeah, Kyl and McCain are my senators. I also think McCain looked at the evidence, but I'm not as certain in McCain's case.
I think Ann Coulter's book _High Crimes and Misdemeanors_ names some names. I'll try to dig it out of my pile of books and check.
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.