Posted on 04/22/2005 12:05:45 PM PDT by katieanna
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney warned Democrats Friday that he will cast the tie-breaking vote to ban filibusters of President Bush's judicial nominees if the Senate deadlocks on the question.
I think Cheney's weighing in on this will bring the renegade GOP senators home.
Hey Cheney, tell them to go get f*%*d again. hehe!
If that's all of them, WE win.
Make it so
Nice! Dick is a fighter. Go boy! I hope he DOES cast the deciding vote. Ram it down their friggin throats, for the love of mercy!
If Cheney is there, he will preside over the Senate, and Frist won't even get to talk. Cheney will be the one to make the ruling that it is unconstitutional, and the one to call for a vote when Dems object. Sweeet.
I expect a whole lotta horse trading going on. There may be some DEMs who switch over as well, so the matter is not entirely for the weak-sister GOP Senators to control.
Snowe and Collins of Maine are in favor of retaining the present move-the-vote rule for confirmation of nominees, but haven't come out and asserted a vote-certain, either way. Chaffee and McCain are another pair.
This thread might be a good one for collecting the public pronouncements of (some of) the GOP Senators.
When push comes to shove, the five turncoats are going to have to weigh what their futile vote will cost them in the long run.
If you're a RINO winning only because you get Democrat support, you probably still vote against it. If your job depends on conservative voters, you might abstain or go along with the crowd.
Because there WILL be a backlash against them.
Indeed.
With the attention the national media is paying to this matter and the fact the VP is acting in his role as President of the Senate...the atmosphere does become more weighty. Cheney has gravitas deluxe. When the time comes to vote, I do not think that many republicans will vote against the team. There could not be much to gain in doing so.
OOPS! My stupidy. I missread the post. Like an idiot, I missed the"it". Damn, I hate it when I do something stupid
I think Defiant means that Cheney will rule that 60 votes for confirmation is un-constitutional, which it is. Cheney will then call for a ruling from the Chair, which will re-instate the rule of 51 votes for confirmation.
Peace.
Good thing you're quick on the trigger, because I was contemplating how to hammer you to a bloody pulp in a gentlemanly manner.
Blocking filibusters will probably be one of Hillary's main ploys after she elected President in 2008...
Remember that blocking filibusters relates only to nominations-not legislation.
Cheney will BE the chair, the presiding officer. If Frist asks for a ruling on a point of order, the chair makes the ruling. The point of order will be whether or not it is appropriate (Constitutional, whatever label you wanna put on it) for a minority of Senators to stifle taking a vote on a nominee. The chair (Cheney) rules, "Nope. Y'all should go ahead and vote."
At that point, the DEMs go ballistic and object. The entire Senate votes whether or not to sustain the rule from the chair (Cheney). If the vote is tied, 50-50, on the rule, Cheney will reassert the same rule he laid down half an hour before. Voila, simple majority vote for judicial nominees.
Cheney needs to teach Senator Luger how to run a committee!!!
I watched that hearing on John Bolton that Senator Luger ran and it was AWFUL!!!
Which is going to be the Senario.... the one you described or one where Sen. Frist brings a rule change to the floor. He held off on accepting the rules from the last Congress saying at some point he may want or need to change them and didn't want to have the 2/3rds requirement out there.
In either case how do you see it coming down regarding when a vote can or will be taken on a nominee? It appears to me that they will have to set some time limit on debate for a nominee, maybe the 30 hrs as prescribed when cloture is invoked, and then the vote is taken. Otherwise how do you ever get to the vote as long as some Senator objects to it?
"There may be some DEMs who switch over as well, so the matter is not entirely for the weak-sister GOP Senators to control."
That would work for me! I'm just here with my candle in the dark, looking for an honest congresscritter. At this point I don't really care whether they are an R or a D. Just do the right thing!!
Cheney needs to teach Senator Luger how to run a committee!!!
You da man, Richard.....you da man!
"I was contemplating how to hammer you to a bloody pulp in a gentlemanly manner"
as long as you don't ask Dog Gone what planet he's on, you'll be fine! (He really IS gentleman!)
puleeeeeeeeze don't pee in the oatmeal
I am praying that that will never happen!
The scenario where, after some debate a motion is made to vote, and a DEM objects to the vote, and Frist calls on the chair for a point of order; that scenario is the so-called "nuclear" option. This is the only one that has a snowball's chance.
A scenario where Frist submits a proposed new rule may or may not be undertaken. A proposed new rule was prepared in 2003, but AFAIK, it never went anywhere. A rule change at this point in time would require a supermajority of Senators. Frist might do this to show that the GOP is offering every solution short of the so-called "nuclear" one, but IMO, such an offer is a waste of time.
He held off on accepting the rules from the last Congress saying at some point he may want or need to change them and didn't want to have the 2/3rds requirement out there.
I believe the rules for this Congress were already voted on and accepted, back in January 2005. That was an opportune time to make changes, but no change was made to Rule 22. At least no change that make a simple majority sufficient for confirmation of a nominee.
In either case how do you see it coming down regarding when a vote can or will be taken on a nominee? It appears to me that they will have to set some time limit on debate for a nominee, maybe the 30 hrs as prescribed when cloture is invoked, and then the vote is taken.
I see some time for debate, but not much is needed given that debate has already been held on the two nominees now on the floor of the Senate. At some point, there will be a motion to vote on the nominee.
Otherwise how do you ever get to the vote as long as some Senator objects to it?
Presently, getting to the vote is done either by unanimous consent, or by a cloture motion that passes with 60 votes.
I stand corrected. Thanks. Now, prey tell, when will the Owen and Rogers-Brown nominations be brought to the floor? Before Memorial Day recess, I hope.
Senate leadership doesn't provide much in the way of a public calendar. I haven't heard of any timeframe, not even a tentative one.
Can we start yanking GOP turncoat committee assignments on these guys? Start with my senator John McCain and repeal ALL of his committee seats! I'm still upset that Jon Kyl didn't get to chair the judiciary committee - we've got that windbag from PA leading a pack of wild dog democrats who'll maul him and others that will get in their way! It's time to call out the dog catchers! John Cornyn, and Jon Kyl are 2 guys I trust!
LOL. Not ha-ha funny, by the way.
You've heard the saying, politics is like making sausage. It's easy to lose sight of compromise, and politics sometimes involves ugly compromises. I'm past trying to figure out the behind-the-scenes maneuvers.
Politics is an insider's game, for the most part. We voters are tasked with weighing the candidates come election day. I've never voted for a candidate that supported all of the positions that I advocate, probably never will.
I think the most powerful tool the voters have is education. And "we" aren't exactly stellar students. Half of the public is as gullible as a carnival crowd, half of the public is apathetic, and the other half is .... oh wait, ... ;-)
If there are only five renegades, it's fine by me if Cheney casts the deciding vote.
If Cheney is the deciding vote the Dems will explode. It'll be an amazing day of must see TV. It would almost make the frustration on whether they have the courage to do it worth it.
Of Course the Republicans have actually got to put an end to this filibuster FIRST, and gather at least 50 votes whether they be Dem or Rep.
I do know I won't vote or support anyone that votes against, Dem or Rep. Where I will consider voting Dem if one votes yes.
You must think the democrat party will not fall into line like ANTS upon her election..
If Washington D.C. is NOT a urinal, PROVE IT..
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1389301/posts
Some Republicans have taken to calling the majority leader's expected strategy the "constitutional option." Under long-standing Senate rules, 60 votes have been required to end debate. Frist could engineer the rule change as early as next week.
Good to see Dick jump into the fight.
Me Too.. But Bush destroying his legacy, on purpose, with the illegal alien and Mexico border fiasco.. Prayer is definitely needed.. I would not be surprised if G.W. Bush does not become HATED because of it.. Even by most BushBots..
Looks like the chip don't fall to far from the tree..
What tree.?
The "Read my lips no NEW TAXES", tree.. Spoken by the Main Moron.. that single handily elected the Traitor Bill Clinton..
ALL Bushs do stink, unless perfumed, in my experience..
During a floor speech, addressing the Democratic filibusters of controversial judicial nominees, Frist said: “Right now, we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease, so I reserve the right to propose changes to Senate Rule 22 and do not acquiesce to carrying over all the rules from the last Congress.”
HUH? How do you figure a change in Senate rules is unconstitutional? Surly you can't be that stupid.
OK, Bar Fly, let me slow it down for you. Dick Cheney, the Vice President, will be presiding over the Senate when the nomination of a judge comes to the floor. There will be an effort to filibuster the judge's confirmation vote. Dick Cheney will be the one to rule that the filibuster is unconstitutional, as it impinges on the Senate's duty to advise and consent. Then the Senate will vote on the ruling by the chair, and it only takes a majority to uphold that ruling.
Got it now? Surly you do.
One of the two options is couched in a simple call for the vote, followed by DEM objection, followed by a request for ruling from the chair.
The other is couched in a call for the vote, followed by a DEM objection, followed by offering up a rule change, followed by a DEM objection to the rule change, and the procedure for determining the rule change is put to the chair.
Either way, the end effects are the same. I did find an article that discusses the opposing perceptions of Frist's January statment of "not acquiescing to Rule 22."
"I think the best reading is all of Rule 22 doesn't apply," said Todd Gaziano, the director of the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. "I know you'll get many Republicans and Democrats who disagree." Gaziano said that Democrats lost their chance to rebut Frist's refusal to accept the rules of the previous Congress by not objecting to his statement on the floor. He said that Democrats now have a strong incentive to negotiate with Frist on crafting a new filibuster rule that exempts judicial nominees from stalling. Otherwise, Democrats would not have the right to filibuster legislation they oppose, such as Bush's energy bill, he said. "By their silence they have acquiesced in a way to Frist's non-acquiescence," he said. "I think that every senator wants a legislative filibuster. ... I think both sides should come together to craft an acceptable legislative filibuster."A more narrow interpretation of Frist's statement is that he declined to acquiesce on the section of Rule 22 that governs ending debate on an amendment to the rules. In the last Congress, most Senate experts interpreted Rule 22 to require a vote of two-thirds of the Senate to end debate on a proposed rules change. By declining to accept that reading, Frist could make a rules change with a simple majority vote. That tactic is known as the "nuclear option" because it would likely melt relations between Republicans and Democrats. This interpretation is seemingly supported by Frist's statement in his Jan. 4 remarks that "some, I know, have suggested that the filibusters of the last Congress are reason enough to offer a procedural change today, right here and right now, but at this moment I do not choose that path."
Senior Democratic Senate aides, however, dismiss this interpretation as absurd. One aide said Frist's statement is "definitely meaningless as far as a parliamentary standpoint." The Democratic aide argued that the Senate, unlike the House, is a continuing body and that the rules of the previous session carry over unless "action is taken otherwise." The aide said that two-thirds of the Senate would need to vote to end a filibuster on a proposed rules change and that Republicans could be sure to expect a filibuster from Democrats if they attempted to change the rules to bar extended debate on judicial nominees, Frist's office has allowed the controversy to grow by not clarifying the floor comments, letting them stand on their own.
In the last Congress, Democrats used filibusters to prevent floor votes on 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees. Bush has resubmitted most his blocked nominees. Manuel Miranda, who served as Frist's top aide in charge of strategy on Bush's judicial nominees, agreed with Gaziano's interpretation.
"In my opinion, Rule 22 has not been acquiesced to and is not in effect," Miranda said. "Frist specifically reserves on Rule 22, and we do not know what he is challenging or proposing until he further objects or does not. So in theory he has challenged all of Rule 22, but in context he clearly is objecting to its use regarding judicial nominations."
But Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel to the American Center for Law in Justice, said that he believed that Rule 22, also known as the cloture rule, remained in effect. However, most conservatives agree that Frist will likely settle the controversy next month.
I see you corrected yourself before I had replied. Please disregard my surly response. I should have read the whole thread first.
"propose changes to Senate Rule 22" frist
So, thank you for the link, and the relevant details.
You can get there by either method but a rule change with details seems to be the cleanest route and can lay the ground rules for debate such as length, etc. I guess we'll know which method Sen Frist chooses to employ shortly I hope.
http://wampum.wabanaki.net/archives/001648.html
http://www.prometheus6.org/node/8459
http://www.venable.com/docs/publication/1081.pdf <- Page 3 -- Rule 22 itself gives 2/3 vote for rules changes
Below is a bigger piece of Frist's statement in January.
"Our first responsibility above all else is to do our constitutional duty. Nothing should come before it. Nothing should stand between it. Not party, not ideology, and certainly not politics. And yet in the last Congress, I believe the Senate failed to perform in an essential constitutional duty. It failed to offer advice and consent to the president by filibustering ten judicial nominees and threatening to filibuster another six."These filibusters were unprecedented. Never in the history of the Senate has a minority filibustered a judicial nominee that had clear majority support. This was an abrupt and an unfortunate break in more than 200 years of Senate tradition, of Senate history. This tradition must be restored, not merely because we honor the traditions of the Senate, but because this tradition reflects the proper role for this body, the Senate, as designed by our Framers in the constitutional arrangement.
"Next month we'll have the opportunity to restore Senate tradition. I'll bring one of the president's very capable and qualified judicial nominees to the floor. We can debate that nomination. We can vote to support it or to oppose it. And we must offer the president advice and consent by giving this and future judicial nominees who are brought to the floor up-or-down votes.
"Some, I know, have suggested that the filibusters of the last Congress are reason enough to offer a procedural change today right here and right now. But at this moment, I do not choose that path. My Democratic colleagues have new leadership, and in the spirit of bipartisanship, I want to extend my hand across the aisle. I have a sincere hope that we can move forward past difficulties, beyond the past difficulties we saw in the last Congress, and look forward to a future of cooperation. I seek cooperation not confrontation. Cooperation does not require support for the nominees. Cooperation simply means voting judicial nominees brought to the floor up or down.
"So let me say this: if my Democratic colleagues exercise self-restraint and don't 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. Right now we cannot be certain judicial filibusters will cease, so I reserve the right to propose changes to Senate Rule 22 and do not acquiesce in the carrying over all the Rules from the last Congress.
"As a public servant who has twice taken an oath to support the Constitution, I cannot stand idly by, nor should any of us, if the Senate fails to do its constitutional duty. We as United States Senators have our constitutional duty to offer the president advice and consent."
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=page&page=S13&dbname=2005_record
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?position=page&page=S14&dbname=2005_record
My first impression is that going the route of debating the rule is less direct. The DEM Senators would point to the part of the rule that says 2/3rd required for rules changes, and the DEMS will steer the debate into rule v. rule, Senate tradition, blah blah blah.
On the other hand, it is more direct to assert that the rule is inapplicable to the vote being called for, a vote on a nominee. This draws the debate to the propriety of using cloture on confirmation votes.
As you say, we'll find out which approach, if either, is in the works. A third option is status quo. Let the nomination languish under failure to reach cloture.
Yes they will scream and seek all attention they can get... Also look for things to get tied up in committees with holds, extentions, other delaying tactics, etc. I'm not too sure that the Republicans will want to do away with holds as they use them just like the democrats to get consessions, etc.
We are going to see uncharted waters and who knows what if anything will get done in the Senate.... It will be interesting.
I think this was the first time Cici ever said something I think is correct!
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.