Showdown Over Filibusters Appears Imminent

netscape.cnn.com ^ | 05/17/2005 | Associated Press

[TexasAg1996]

My favorite quote in this article was:

"The goal of the Republican leadership and their allies in the White House is to pave the way for a Supreme Court nominee who would only need 50 votes for confirmation rather than 60," the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster blocking a confirmation vote, Reid said.

Ok, but you've always needed only 50 votes (well, 50 + the VP tie breaker) to confirm a judge. He's basically just admitted that the goal of the Republicans is to let a judge be confirmed by majority vote. Duh. Most of us with half a brain knew that already.

Sounds like it'll be close, but I'm guessing we've got the votes.

[Mister Baredog]

Sounds like it'll be close, but I'm guessing we've got the votes

I sure hope so, if not it will be the certain demise of the Republicans in the Senate.

I can't even IMAGINE why someone like McPain would vote against this when he wants to be President. He must think all of his nominees would be welcomed with open arms by the DUmmies.

Actually he probably would nominate liberals anyway, just to keep his BASE, the MSM happy.

Of course we all know the only way this A**hole would ever be elected Prez is as a DUmbocRAT.

[aynrandfreak]

This story is getting to be like reports of Zarqawi's capture being imminent. JUST DO IT ALREADY!

[ken5050]

It may not happen until late last week....there is a certain script that must be followed, and Frist has to be aware of PR as well. As I understand the sequence.. 3. Frist will start the debate, saying that he will limit it to 100 hours..50 for each side..The Dems probably will igore that statement, because they want the chance to trash her in a media spotlight.

4. After 100 hours of debate, Frist will ask for debate to end, and a vote be taken.

5. Dems will object

6.Frist will then file a motion of cloture..which has to be carried ovr 2 more days before it can be voted on.

The Dems might then decide to allow the vote..and the problem "disappears"..

Or they hold fast, and then Frist moves to change the rule...

He could bypass all precursors, and go right for the rule change first, but he won't..so, I think at best it's late next week...and he might decide to bring the Bolton nomination up in the interim... 1. Because everyone will be watching..all the media,a nd many people..if they are petty obstructionists, they will come across badly..

[ken5050]

see my #4...and pardon the first line typo.."last" should be "next"

[ken5050]

Oops..see my #4 and 5..

[MrsEmmaPeel]

So you reckon the vote will not happen until late next week-- but the process *may* get started this week?

IMHO 100 hours debate seems a bit excessive. How many times can one side say: "You're a poopy head" and the other side counter: "No, you're the poopy head" and still saying something meaningful and unique?

[xp38]

[sittnick]

I am amazed at all the commotion over this. I remember during the Jimmy Carter years that the Panama Canal TREATY was termed an AGREEMENT to get around the 2/3's rule that the Constitution imposes on treaties. I suspect that the same deal happened with WTO and GATT, and would have happened with Kyoto.

No one raises a question about the Constitution or minority party rights on these matters, though.

[Cboldt]

... there is a certain script that must be followed ...

I think there is more than one possible script.

• Debate a nominee, then ask for unanimous consent to vote (DEMs cave outright on a given nominee - no rule change)
• Debate a nominee, ask for the vote but have an objection, ask for a ruling from the chair (complex parliamentary maneuvering omitted for the sake of brevity)
• Debate a nominee, ask for the vote, have an objection, file a cloture motion, the cloture motion passes and the nominee is voted on (no rule change)
• Debate a nominee, ask for the vote, have an objection, file a cloture motion, the cloture motion fails, then ask the chair for a ruling, proceed as above

I personally object to the use of cloture, because to me it rings of concession that a supermajority approval is okay for nominees.

There may be other points of realigning the Senate rules for voting on nominees. For exapmle, Rule XXXI which I quoted to you in part, earlier.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404176/posts?page=439#439 <--

[Primetimedonna]

"IMHO 100 hours debate seems a bit excessive. How many times can one side say: "You're a poopy head" and the other side counter: "No, you're the poopy head" and still saying something meaningful and unique?"

I agree totally that the 100 hours of debate is way too long. I'm still laughing at your description of the debate!!! You captured the essence of the debates we've seen on Bolton & Judges....well said!! LOL

[Cboldt]

... there is a certain script that must be followed ...

I omitted another possible script - debate the nominee, and file a cloture motion before ever seeking unanimous consent to move to the vote. The cloture motion could be filed at the same time the nomination is brought up for debate. This would bypass the opportunity for an objection at the time of asking for the vote, and substitutes in its place the mandatory vote at the conclusion of time allowed by Rule XXII, or earlier if agreed by unanimous consent.

I doubt there will be a 100 hour debate. Both Owen and Brown have been thoroughly debated already. THey are not the issue, Senate process has become the issue. Sure, there will be some time for talk so the DEMs can refresh public memory as to why they are opposed to these nominees. But that won't take more than a day and a half.

[SolomoninSouthDakota]

"MHO 100 hours debate seems a bit excessive. How many times can one side say: "You're a poopy head" and the other side counter: "No, you're the poopy head" and still saying something meaningful and unique?"

Maybe that's the point of holding 100 hrs. of "debate". By then nearly everyone will have to agree that it's time to vote even if obstructionist demonrats in the Senate don't. They will be left with little or no political support by then.

[ken5050]

Question for you....

Assume that, for whatever reason, Owen comes up first,and the Dems cave, they don't object, they ask for 100 hours of debate, and then vote...IOW words..no filabuster..how many AYE votes do you think she gets?..

[Cboldt]

Owen comes up first,and the Dems cave, they don't object, they ask for 100 hours of debate, and then vote...IOW words..no filabuster..how many AYE votes do you think she gets?.

Less than 60. Interesting that 5 DEMs tended to vote for cloture in the previous Congress.

[Honcho]

I think whatever rule replaces the filibuster is going to be critical to how Republicans emerge from this politically. The rule change should be something that is simple, easy to articulate, and something that provides for a lengthy debate before an "automatic cloture" of debate.

The rule should be the basis for the frame of the arguement to the American people. IGNORE THE COMPLICATIONS of the arguement and ignore the screaming that will be coming from the left.

The battle cry should be the solution. For example if the new rule allows for 10 rounds of debate before an "automatic cloture" the battle cry should be "10 Rounds of debate should be more than enough to decide on any given canidate before the Senate. This issue has been a distraction and I for one am glad it's resolved so we can get back to doing work of the American people." And leave it at that. When the Democrats clog up the Senate repeat after me "WORK OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WORK OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, WORK OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE." The GOP should not get caught up in the muckity-muck of the arguement. The fact that everyone deserves an up or down vote is a given, WE SHOULD NEVER ENGAGE IN DEBATE OVER THAT FACT. PERIOD.

[ken5050]

And that may be why she's coming up first..because it will be hard later on for the red-state Dems to vote NO on all of Bush's nominees..I just caught some of the replay of the Dem presser from this morning..Tim Johnson doesn't look happy..

[Cboldt]

I just checked all of the cloture votes in Calendar 2003. Owen had 4 of them. Only two DEMs voted to invoke cloture, Zell Miller and Nelson, of Nebraska.

The only other DEMs that voted for cloture in any of those (Brown, Kuhl, Owen (4 votes), Pryor (2 votes), Pickering and Estrada (7 votes)) were Breaux and Nelson of Florida.

Did you catch Frist's presser just now? He said debate until debate is exhausted (did not give a time certain), and he also did not give the name of the nominee he would bring up. He did note that he preferred unanimous consent to take the vote.

Now that puts pressure on the DEMs to stand up and voice their objections, and then to get on with it. While they certainly have the technical right to object to taking the vote, it is hard to sell the imposition of a 60 vote supermajority for handling nominees.

[ken5050]

Many Dems are being forced to support the filabuster, but they willbe allowd to vote FOR the nominees when they come up for a vote...That , IMHO, is the Dem's ticking time bomb...A red-state Dem who votes against EVERY Bush nominee will have a hard time explaining how he speaks for the values of his state..