LIVE Senate Filibuster Thread ~ Day 4

C-span ^ | 5-23-05 | US Senate

[OXENinFLA]

Senate Debate on Nominations Today the Senate resumes debate on the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. The Senate will conduct its first roll call vote of the week at 5:30pm. Follow the C-SPAN networks & C-SPAN Radio for the debate on Senate rules & judicial nominations. MON., 11:30AM ET, C-SPAN2

--------------------

ORDERS FOR MONDAY, MAY 23, 2005 -- (Senate - May 20, 2005)

[Page: S5714] GPO's PDF

---

Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 11:30 a.m. on Monday, May 23. I further ask that following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be deemed expired, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved, and that the Senate then return to executive session and resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, provided that the time from 12 noon until 1 p.m. be under the control of the majority leader or his designee and, at 1 p.m., the Democratic leader or his designee be recognized; provided that floor time then rotate between the two leaders or their designees every 60 minutes until 4 p.m., at which time the majority leader or his designee be recognized until 4:45 p.m., to be followed by the Democrat leader or his designee from 4:45 p.m. until 5:30 p.m.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered.

--------------

PROGRAM -- (Senate - May 20, 2005)

[Page: S5714] GPO's PDF

---

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on Monday, the Senate will resume consideration of the nomination of Priscilla Owen to serve as a circuit judge on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Monday will be the fourth consecutive day the Senate considers the Owen nomination.

Over the past 3 days, a number of Members, on both sides of the aisle, have come to the floor to speak on the nomination. We have conducted over 25 hours of debate, and we will continue on Monday. Moments ago, we filed a cloture motion on the nomination, and that will ripen on Tuesday of next week.

On behalf of the majority leader, I remind my colleagues the leader has announced our next rollcall vote will occur Monday afternoon at 5:30. That vote will be on a motion to instruct the Sergeant at Arms to request Senators' attendance. Senator Frist will have more to say about next week's session on Monday.

[Txsleuth]

I just turned the volume up HIGH---didn't even wake my 4 month old granddaughter!!!

[jackbill]

What's happens if the dems ALLOW Owen, Brown & others to have an up/down and wait to not invoke cloture until a SC judge?

The Republicans would hold off on the Constitutional Option until the RATs filibuster a SC nominee - and then pull the trigger.

[Soul Seeker]

THANK YOU SENATOR FRIST AND MAJORITY OF REPUBLICANS.

I feel the ned to say that. ;-)

Liddy just mentioned Estrada. I don't think I'm ever going to get over Estrada's withdrawal. I wish we could put him back in the process, but I doubt he desires it now.

[mwl1]

You are missing an important consideration pertaining to Senate rules and procedure. If we go for a full-fledged filibuster on each nominee, only one RAT has to be present talking for hours on end, while the majority caucus has to be present at essentially all times.

The RATS have 40+ Senators that can trade out their talking space, while the rest of them hammer away on the MSM, and the rest filter out in the country to local news outlets and do fundraisers. Meanwhile the majority Republicans are stuck in session having to vote on roll call after roll call.

It's just the rules.

[Cboldt]

I assume you do not like Labels. I do. So long as they accurately define the person they are placed on.

You are right. I prefer to look at least one layer below the label.

I don't assume that my definition of a label matches that of the writer. I find arguments over the meaning of labels a waste of time. Notice the word there, arguments. I think use of labels with mutually agreed labels is fine.

[MamaLucci]

LOL!

BTW, Liddy did a great job. Senator Bunning up.

[Quix]

The DIMRATS

have a new mantra:

PROFILES IN TREASON AGAINST THE USA
in behalf of globalist tyranny.

[Cboldt]

I assume you do not like Labels. I do. So long as they accurately define the person they are placed on.

You are right. I prefer to look at least one layer below the label.

I don't assume that my definition of a label matches that of the writer. I find arguments over the meaning of labels a waste of time. Notice the word there, arguments. I think use of labels with mutually agreed definition (oops!) is fine.

[defconw]

PROFILES IN TREASON AGAINST THE USA
Great title for a book!

[spudsmaki]

The polls also show that half to two thirds of the people in this country think that changing the Senate rules in the middle of this is a bad idea.

Actually, half to 2/3 don't give a rip, they just wish the whole thing would go away so they can watch the news again.

I agree the rules shouldn't be changed in the middle, they should have been changed on the first session day of the Senate. Frist deliberately shrugged that off, hoping the whole judge issue would disappear by itself. Boy, was he wrong. Now he's just made life harder for himself.

The only folks who support Reid are Democrats who will never change their vote. Folks like me, whose vote is dependent on these judges, are those pesky swing voters. The Pubbies must have the swing voters to win elections.

[Quix]

Good. I hope they singe his tailfeathers

just from all the pending and active heat about the possibility of him persisting with insane compromises and voting with the DIMRATS or compromising with the TREASONOUS ONES.

Sheesh.

[Bahbah]

I have not heard Bunning speak before. I know there were health allegations during the last campaign. He does seem to have some problem, although minor, and he is making his points quite clearly.

[jackbill]

Liddy just mentioned Estrada. I don't think I'm ever going to get over Estrada's withdrawal. I wish we could put him back in the process, but I doubt he desires it now.

The filibusters have had the effect of making the only nominees that can hold on and wait, those who are already on a court - state or federal. A nominee who is working in the private sector, such as a partner in a law firm or a lawyer with a major law firm, can't hang indefinitely. That's why Estrada bailed.

[Soul Seeker]

While I agree that the entire sum of a person cannot be defined in one or two words, it is an impossibility to present a dictionary to the public and ask them to read their record. Labels are shorthand. A cliff notes cheat sheat. It is the responsibility of the public to do further research if they do not trust in the assigned label. If they have no desire to do so, or lack time, this is the tool they latch onto. While not perfect, it serves its purpose.

[Deo et Patria]

"I say he has been dragged to this because he would not have done it if he had not felt the pressure from conservative groups and constitutionalists."

Again, I ask you for the proof. Where has he said that he was opposed to the "constitutional option", if push came to shove? Please leave the emotion out of it (e.g., "I'm sick of this", "I'm tired of that,") and show me how Frist has been forced to change his position on the "constitutional option" by the pressure you speak of.

And, by the way, it would be nice if MORE Republicans listened to the pressure from "conservative groups and constitutionalists" rather than trying to get a nice write up in the Washington Post. (See e.g., McCain et. al)

[Milhous]

Love that graphic!!

Ditto. Here's another good graphic, IMHO, that a FReeper nymed OESY discovered:

[OXENinFLA]

Yeah, I should've added I don't think that's gonna happen.

The dems have painted themselves into a corner. If they don't continue to block these "extreme" (their words) judges there will be no doubt in the undecided public's minds that their doing this for purely political purposes.

[EQAndyBuzz]

"If the GOP does pull the nuclear option off, I wonder whether Bill Frist will be getting any apologies from the FReepers who bashed him incessantly throughout this ordeal? "

I am still wondering what the Democrats have up their sleeve.

[OXENinFLA]

They really need to split up the 9th........it's way to large.

[Cboldt]

The Republicans would hold off on the Constitutional Option until the RATs filibuster a SC nominee - and then pull the trigger.

You mean ... you mean ... the DEMs control when the issue hits the fan?

The failure of the Senate to vote on a nomination is a confusing issue when expressed clearly, nevermind when the underlying dysfunction and remedy are obfuscated with indefinite terms like "filibuster" and "nuclear trigger."

• The dysfunction is a DEM refusal to vote on a nominee, even after ample opportunity to debate. This refusal interferes with the President's Constitutional power to seat officers of his preference.
• The DEMs, by creating and controlling the dysfunction, have control over the need for a remedy. They have the trigger on the nuclear option. The issue evaporates if and when they agree to vote on a nomination.

A "dry run," where the GOP threatens the nuclear option but doesn't deliver it (because the DEMs approve cloture) will work in DEM favor. How? Some GOP will take the failure to execute the nuclear option as a GOP failure. They've been conditioned to think that Frist has the trigger! Also, the build up of debate for days, with no release except the vote on the nominee, will wear the Senators down.

Pull this a couple times, and the entire public will tire of what it sees as "a charade." All of that leads, potentially, to "more care" in choosing SCOTUS nominees.