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!
This should come as no surprise from the Stali - er, Commu - er, Socia - er, Libe - er, Progressives, yeah, thats what they are this week, Progressives.
Now, if some true leadership with intestinal fortitude stood up and agressively addressed the issue, the fecal waste would come within direct contact with the rotary oscillator and all this could be halted.
Frist is dreading the Tom Delay.
I should have clarified myself prior; Bolton and Estrada were both formally filibustered because they failed to clear cloture.
As for the intent of Bolton's filibuster, if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the (D)s intent to kill the nomination, disguised as a fishing expedition...
Except I would change "intent of the filibuster" in your sentence to "intent of the refusal to vote." Sometime refusing to vote is honorable, because the person hasn't enough information to decide, or hasn't had an opportunity to persude others to see things his way.
When refusing to vote is done to stall the matter, THAT is but ONE form of filibuster.
And we agree that the DEMs refusal to vote on judicial nominees and Bolton is designed to kill the nomination.
And there is this link:
"As for the intent of Bolton's filibuster, if I was a betting man, I would put my money on the (D)s intent to kill the nomination, disguised as a fishing expedition..."
Gee, ya think? Sorry, that sounds facetious. I am venting so please excuse the tone of voice :)
The cloture rule was implemented in 1917, on a bipartisan 76-3 vote. (p226). With the concurrance of 2/3rds of the Senators voting, debate would be limited and taking the vote would be set for a time certain.
In 1949, on a 63-23 vote, the threshold was modified to 2/3rds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. (p229).
In 1959, a 77-22 vote made cloture possible with 2/3rds of the Senators present and voting. (p247). Also, cloture was broaded to include rules changes - this is where the "2/3rds of Senators present and voting are required to change the rules" rule comes from. The 1959 changes are referred to as the "Johnson (LBJ) Compromise."
In 1975, Senator Pearson introduced a proposal to change the threshold to 3/5ths of Senators present and voting. (p257). That proposal did not pass. In the same year, Senator Byrd's proposed revision to 3/5ths of all Senators passed on a 56-27 vote. (p259).
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
Slightly improved version here .. points out relationship (and links) to Robert's Rules of Order.
Senate Rules from 1789 to 1806 permitted calling the question with a simple majority. See http://rules.senate.gov/history.html, Rule IX. This rule was removed in 1806, and in its place was a requirement to obtain unanimous consent to move to the vote. One objecting Senator could stifle the vote.
The cloture rule was implemented in 1917, on a bipartisan 76-3 vote. (p226). With the concurrance of 2/3rds of the Senators voting, debate would be limited and taking the vote would be set for a time certain. This matches the procedure in Robert's Rules of Order.
In 1949, on a 63-23 vote, the threshold was modified to 2/3rds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. (p229).
In 1959, a 77-22 vote returned to the original 2/3rds of the Senators present and voting. (p247). Also, cloture was broaded to include rules changes - this is where the "2/3rds of Senators present and voting are required to change the rules" rule comes from. The 1959 changes are referred to as the "Johnson (LBJ) Compromise."
In 1975, Senator Pearson introduced a proposal to change the threshold to 3/5ths of Senators present and voting. (p257). That proposal did not pass. In the same year, Senator Byrd's proposed revision to 3/5ths of all Senators passed on a 56-27 vote. (p259).
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
I certainly saw some Democrat say: "We're going to vote on the nomination as soon as we get the information we want."
But they have no legitimate reason or need to want the names of people Bolton legitimately and ethically inquired about in the course of his duties at State (he's already been cleared by the Senate Intell. committee) so under those circumstances, you could technically call this "filibuster" a "procedural delay", but it looks more like "blackmail" to me!
I just wonder who wants this info., and why? Isn't Friday "conspiracy day"?? LOL!!
Or is it the other way around?? A fishing expedition disguised as an irrational animus toward John Bolton? and perhaps setting a precedent for illegitimately prying information out of the Executive Branch...just think what they could do in future by setting that "precedent"! (see my post 29...LOL!)
...Sheeit! As fo' da intent o' Bolton'sfilibuster, if I wuz uh gamblin man, I would put muh mo' fo' money on da (D)s intent ta kill da nomination, disguised as uh fishing expedition ta slap da mah fro!
{Ebonics translators are soooo much fun}
I wander if there still wouldn't be a way out of this mess, even with the agreement in place.
What if, with the announcement of a cloture vote, there would simply be a requirement that the vote of 2/5ths of seated Senators would be needed to deny cloture, along with the 50 needed to maintain a quorum.
This preserves the filibuster option, but puts the pressure on the minority to keep at least forty members in the Senate chamber at all times and keep talking. As soon as there is a quorum and 40 members of the minority are not present, cloture could be invoked. So, for example, a vote of 11 for cloture and 39 against would result in closing debate and scheduling a vote on the issue. In addition, the rule could also say that at whatever point there is no one to continue debate, cloture is automatically invoked. If the Republicans did this, they could "preserve" the filibuster but place all the burden on the Democrats to keep almost their entire caucus there at all hours. Republicans would only need to keep 10 or 11 in chambers in the waiting game. This allows the rest of the Republicans to hit the talk shows, etc.
Since this is not the original constitutional option, the 7 would be free to vote for this rule change. This would restore Senate tradition, preserve the filibuster, all the talking points of the Democrats. But it would prevent them from sustaining it forever and they would have to fold at some point.
What do you all think?
It took me awhile to grasp the principles involved in cloture, and a brief trip to the link to Robert's Rules of Order may help you to see it too. It is dishonest to tie up a deliberative body with a refusal to vote, once one knows one's position.
If it is to be codified, I recommend changing Rule XXXI (nominations) so that it has a clause similar to 1(d) of Rule XXX (treaties).
(d) On the final question to advise and consent to the ratification in the form agreed to, the concurrence of twothirds of the Senators present shall be necessary to determine it in the affirmative; but all other motions and questions upon a treaty shall be decided by a majority vote, except a motion to postpone indefinitely, which shall be decided by a vote of twothirds.I think it was error to invoke Rule XXII (cloture) in the context of a nomination. Rule XXII is loaded with steps that pertain to legislation, and are totally irrelevant for the Executive business of providing advice and consent to a nomination.http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule30.htm
I think they want the info because it will lead to more info to want. You're right. A majority of the committee decided that they had enough information to allow the full senate to make a decision. But it seems that none of the senators (on either side)want to make a decision on anything. Instead of voting, they just vote not to vote. They don't realize how ridiculous that body looks sometimes.
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.