Posted on 05/27/2005 6:12:26 AM PDT by CWW
"Procedural Delay"?
As I watched various newcasts by the 3 alphabet soup networks last night and this morning, I detected a clear trend that is obviosuly the democrats' talking point of the day.
Not one of these networks called yesterday's Bolton vote a filibuster when, in fact, that was exactly the case. In my book, the fialure to get 60 cloture votes is a filibuster. Am I wrong?
Obviously, to call it a filibuster would prove the democrats to disingenuous at best about the so-called new era of legislative detente. But more importantly, it would submarine the mainstream media's drumbeat of criticism of Republican Senator's who favored the constitutional option.
Of course, we'll have a better opportunity to see if the 7 "moderate" democrat senators are men of the word after the Memorial Day recess because Frist has lined up judicial nominations like planes on the Hartsfield Airport tarmac on a Friday afternoon.
But remember, a filibuster is a filibuster by any name.
"Procedural Delay"? Orwell lives!
More word games from the Dems on the Hill...
How can we fool 'em today?
Liberalism is a mental illness.
As soon as the vote was tallied, Reid gets up and says "this is not the Democrats' fault" I almost fell off my chair. What an idiot!
A lot of those old goats like Byrd would drop dead if they had to do that. That could be a good thing.
That said, may I invoke the memory of Abe Fortas.
I bring up disHonest Abe Fortas, because I am certain it was that rational the (D)s employed to convince themselves that "We are not Filibustering Bolton". Abe Fortas was indeed formally Filibustered in 1968, despite recent claims to the contrary by (R)s.
disHonest Abe Fortas did not pass cloture, that officially made it a filibuster.
The only important difference between his fail and Bolton's is that Bolton had more than 50 votes.
I'm just pointing out that Reids quote: "We do not intend to filibuster Bolton" is similar to the leader of Fortas's filibuster "We did not intend to filibuster Fortas"
May Bolton be Recessed and Judicial Filibusters outlawed.
I was going to vote on Bolton before I was not going to vote on Bolton - John Kerry.
You may not be aware of this but John Kerry served in Vietnam.
The "good feeling" of Senate comity has been nuked though...
-...whoever was filibustering would have to stand up there and hold the floor 'til they dropped.-
AND, I'd like to see buzzers in play. Anyone who repeats an argument gets the buzzer. Maybe we can turn the senate into The New Gong Show. If we can't get results out of them, they might as well be entertaining.
It depends on the reason for hanging fire on taking the vote. If the reason is purely to prevent the body of the Senate from giving its "advice & consent," then blocking the vote is a filibuster.
If, on the other hand, the reason for wanting more debate is to help the Senator make up his mind, or if the Senator had something to say to the others, but was denied the opportunity to say so, then voting NAY on cloture is appropriate. Cloture is intended to permit all sides to be heard before taking the vote. It is emphatically NOT to avoid altogether, taking the vote.
One thing for certain, the so-called filibuster deal is a fraud. It's only a matter of time before the democrats nuke their own compromise.
IMO it takes one.
It depends on what the meaning of 'is' is.
The "good feeling" of Senate comity has certainly been nuked.
I think the term Procedural delay is appropriate. I think it's proper to deny cloture if more debate or information is needed so that senators can make a decision based on all possible evidence. However, I am not fooled by what the democrats are doing. They have received enough paperwork and background information. They are not entitled to everything in the executive departments just because they are the congress. This is obviously a delay because the last three delays have been about "more information". It will never end.
Negative.
Only that the terms "filibuster" and "cloture" are not tied at the hip. Sometimes cloture is used to delay or deny taking the vote. If that is the case, then it is filibuster. I am sure that was the case with the cloture votes for judicial nominees in 2003 & 2004, and I am sure that is the case with the Bolton nomination, yesterday.
But sometimes cloture is used for its intended purpose, which is to control the amount of debate. It is improper use of parliamentary procedure to use cloture to kill a matter, but it is NOT ALWAYS improper to deny cloture.
It depends on the reason for hanging fire on taking the vote. If the reason is purely to prevent the body of the Senate from giving its "advice & consent," then blocking the vote is a filibuster.If, on the other hand, the reason for wanting more debate is to help the Senator make up his mind, or if the Senator had something to say to the others, but was denied the opportunity to say so, then voting NAY on cloture is appropriate. Cloture is intended to permit all sides to be heard before taking the vote. It is emphatically NOT to avoid altogether, taking the vote.
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.