Skip to comments.LIVE SENATE THREAD: C-span 2 - 2PM EST - nomination of John Bolton [Cloture vote fails 54-38]
Posted on 06/20/2005 10:20:30 AM PDT by ken5050
Good Monday to you all, fellow Freepers and political junkies. I trust everyone had a nice weekend and a good Father's Day. The Senate will convene at 2PM today. They are scheduled for several hours of debate on the Energy bill, then at 6PM, Frist will call for a cloture vote on the nomination of John Bolton for US Ambassador to the UN. Follow along, and comment, as usual..
Obey was trying to slip something clever into the funding bills.
He got caught!
That's where they are getting the insinuation that the Chaplain's move to Okinawa was PUNITIVE altho the brass says not so.
Indeed. My husband believes that it isn't a liberal vs. conservative war anymore, but a war of good vs evil. I agree.
Here is a random paragraph from a report detailing what they are talking about:
At the Nov. 2 kickoff for the Respecting the Spiritual Values of People program, cadets were advised by head chaplain Michael Whittington to not hold Bible studies in their dormitories, but he was overruled by Commandant Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida.
The chaplain may not be the one being talked about, since this seems to be a male and they are talking about a female.
There seems to be a thought now at the academy that cadets are considered official government representatives and must therefore give up all rights to expression of their religion.
So when the Wisconsin congressman says "freedom to practice religion", they aren't talking about religious freedom.
Here's another line:
Academy officials warned cadets this week against including Bible quotations at the bottom of their academy email messages, reported the Associated Press. "None of this (Bible or personal signature notes) is appropriate, and it says this in Air Force instructions," said Lt. Col. Laurent Fox, referring to a school-wide memo sent in September clarifying policies for using a government email account.
Auntie Em, is this Canada?
Post #91 gives a better description than I did.
Didn't he though. He could have hinted that the Democrats had the three sixes on their scalps...that explains a lot of hairdos also.
That all is most disturbing.
Have you read Hannity's book? You need to! He's right!
Not yet. I read the first one, haven't gotten around to the last one yet.
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 first implemented in 1917, on a bipartisan 76-3 vote. (p226). With the concurrence of 2/3rds of the Senators voting, debate would be limited and taking the vote would be set for a time certain. This matches common parliamentary procedure and was published in Robert's Rules of Order in 1876.
In 1949, on a 63-23 vote, the threshold for passing cloture was modified to 2/3rds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn. (p229).
In 1959, a 77-22 vote returned the margin for passing cloture to the original 2/3rds of the Senators present and voting. (p247). Rule XXII was expanded 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, meeting the 2/3rds of the Senators present and voting threshold for implementing a rules change. (p259).
The proponent party is discouraged from embarking on a marathon filibuster session when it has fewer members than are necessary to pass a cloture motion. The 3/5ths of ALL Senators, per Rule XXII, creates a situation where a proponent with fewer than 60 members can't have enough votes to pass cloture in a "snap vote" even if the opposing side leaves the floor. The conclusion is that if it isn't possible to win, why bother?
The explanation goes on: but if Senate Rules set the hurdle for passing cloture at some fraction of the VOTING Senators, marathon sessions might be undertaken. The explanation posits a scenario where the proponent holds the floor until his side has the requisite majority of Senators present and voting, at which time the proponent would win a snap vote on a cloture motion.
The explanation uses quorum in combination with the "present and voting" hurdle to show that a certain number of the opposing side would be forced to stay in the Senate chambers, lest they lose this "snap vote." It is assumed that the proponent will provide quorum. The number of proponent members determines the number of opponent members required to prevent losing the "snap vote" on cloture. With a quorum of 51 members (all proponents) and a 3/5ths present and voting rule, the opponent must field 35 members in order to have 2/5ths plus one. If the proponent fields 55, the opponent must field 37, and so forth.
Another fallacy is that filibusters used to occur because the rules used to provided for a 3/5th of all members present and voting threshold to invoke cloture, or to reach an agreement to proceed to the vote. The threshold for passing cloture was NEVER 3/5ths of members present and voting, but before 1806, Rule IX provided for moving to the question on a simple majority vote.
IX. The previous question being moved and seconded, the question from the Chair shall be: "Shall the main question be now put?" And if the nays prevail, the main question shall not then be put.
Since when has media replaced analysis by reputable agencies and committees?
It's awesome. It is good v. evil! We have to stand in the gap!
More like responsible governing party vs. lunatic bitter out-of-power whining spoiled brats.
Glenn Beck uses this line as well.
"It is not right vs. left. It is RIGHT VS. WRONG"
I know Savage is not a favorite of many around here, but I agree wholeheartedly that Liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
Oh yuk, Pelosi up now. She makes my ears hurt.
Pelosi is now offering an amendment to ask for the President to deliver a report and plan for troop withdrawal 30 days after passage of this legislation!
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.