Posted on 01/29/2006 5:01:14 AM PST by Alas Babylon!
The Talk Shows
Sunday, January 29nd, 2006
Guests to be interviewed today on major television talk shows:
FOX NEWS SUNDAY (Fox Network): Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.; Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind.; Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean; former Commerce Secretary Don Evans.
MEET THE PRESS (NBC): Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.
FACE THE NATION (CBS): President Bush.
THIS WEEK (ABC): Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb.; Dominique Dawes, Olympic gymnast.
LATE EDITION (CNN) : White House counselor Dan Bartlett; Sens. Joseph Biden, D-Del., and Pat Roberts, R-Kan.; former President Carter; former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
>>Over 1000 posts and NOBODY gave me a smackdown summary of Juan Williams.
Hey, nobody gave me a CLUE what President Bush said on FTN either.
That would actually require thinking. What makes you think that businessmen, particularly the types that run places like Burger King, are capable of that sort of thing?
Now, a real entrepreneur would get several old buses, fire them up and then approach the local businesses in such an area with a proposition.
Problems or opportunities. It depends on your mind set what you see.
Excellent info!
I am not sure that either the Dems or Frist would allow that to happen for less than a Supreme Court nominee at this point. IMHO Frist is a wuss, and the dems will have to have something to use if Ginsburg retires.
My major point is that we had the resources available to stop this ridiculous tactic (it might have taken Cheney's vote to break a tie) and McCain for vanity nixed it.
It is just a Senate rules change, so the scenario could arise again. In the meantime, I believe it colored the President's thinking when he nominated Miers, and has overshadowed the entire nomination process.
Once again cboldt, what a good post. Bookmarked for future reference!
Our Supervisor of Elections in my County is a Dem, but he is a totally fair individual and he is old school, and even though the County is majority Pubbie, he always get re-elected. He is probably a Dino because every Prayer Breakfast,Flag Day commemoration, anything to do with honoring America,the Flag,Soldiers,etc he is at and is very respectful. He does not do it because he is a Politician, he does it because that is the kind of person he is. I believe his family would disown him if he changed parties,and so we have adopted him. It is the one Office out of two in the County that Pubbies do not hold.
I'm not surprised, but I think I remember there being an evidentiary ruling allowing the results of the search of his house to be used before that.
I am NEVER going to catch up :-((
From what I saw Juan said a few incoherent things and everyone seem to be mute, then Brit smacked him a little but seemed subdued and got the last word in refuting Juan's stupid DNC talking point. It was a little boring so we may have to watch the repeat to get anything out of it. I think the IED attack on the ABC reporter kind of left everyone feeling a little blue today.
YEah, I saw that, I was playing off it. They never have the guits to talk that jive to his face.
It's up to GOP Senate leadership. They control what comes to the floor. SCOTUS nominations can't be as easily hidden from public view, as can Circuit Court nominees.
It is just a Senate rules change, so the scenario could arise again. In the meantime, I believe it colored the President's thinking when he nominated Miers, and has overshadowed the entire nomination process.
I absolutely agree that the tactic colors the President's choices, and it is why the practice chaps me so. It erects a supermajority hurdle, set by Senate whim (see history of cloture, below), instead of the simple majority envisioned by the Constitution. Given the evolution of the relationship between the Senate and the President, especially the farily rich panoply of scenarios that have played in the judicial nomination/confirmation arena, the issue is not a "mere rules change" at this point. Sure, that's where it eventually will get embodied (and I think the change belogs in Rule XXXI, mirroring Rule XXX - and not by modification of the cloture rule, Rule XXII). But until the Senate agrees that its supermajority requirement is "Constitutionally infirm," the terms of discussion don't much matter.
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).
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf
See # 632 and decide how it could be reported. Juan was totally incoherent.
Yep. After all the ranting and raving and screaming about "Why doesn't Bush fight back HE shows up on a Sunday and NO one talks about it. Frustrating.
Guess I shouldn't have said "mere"..LOL
I realize that this is a very complex matter, but in the end, the Senate is given the power to regulate itself. I believe that whether the Dems like it or not, a simple majority vote can legally drop filibusters on judicial nominees.
Preventing legislative filibusters is an entirely different matter. I believe this is where the debate on the required supermajority comes into play, and the existing rules of the Senate would apply...
Check post 1007...there wasn't a lot to the interview.
I get the replay in an hour... that is if I can take watching an interview with Howard Dean.
Everyone on Fox seems to think Stevens will retire before long.
Another visit to the Sunday Morning TalkShow thread and another round of histrionics from the chief Bush sycophant and apologist on FR. Obviously you don't think before you post and have a habit of getting all worked up over nothing. On a more serious note, you make no effort to advance the conservative agenda or GOP politics, and for good reason. You have no comprehension what American politics is all about and your juvenile posts prove that. You've shown no interest in discussing the issues that drive conservatism, but you do like to bloviate. As I told you before, you're nothing but a wishy-washy centrist. Btw, if you really want to see a babbling fool, just take a look in the mirror.
At 86, he is not going to have much choice. Bush should have at least one more Supreme Court nomination, and depending on Ginsburg's health, possibly two.
Thanks! Glad to see it wasn't a total waste of the President's time.
To me it seemed he did very well, but not the stellar performance he had at K-State.
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.