"BOOM"
Posted on 05/20/2005 3:22:31 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
The Senate's Republican majority today began a countdown to a vote that has been dubbed the "nuclear option," a decision on whether to end the ability of the chamber's minority to use filibusters to block the appointment of federal judges.
After a third day of debate on one of President Bush's most controversial judicial nominees, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) filed a cloture motion to end the debate and put the nomination to a vote. The cloture vote, scheduled for Tuesday, would trigger a series of steps leading to the "nuclear option" -- unless a bipartisan group of moderate senators succeeds in negotiating a compromise to head it off.
The cloture motion was filed by Cornyn on behalf of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who was traveling today. With strong backing from the White House, Frist wants to ensure that Bush's nominees to the federal bench get "a fair up-or-down vote" on the Senate floor, with a simple majority of the 100 senators deciding the matter, instead of allowing Democrats to block nominees through filibusters, which require 60 votes to break. Republicans say filibuster threats mean that, for practical purposes, a "supermajority" of 60 votes is required to confirm the nominees, rather than the traditional 51 votes.
After submitting the cloture motion, which was signed by 18 senators, Cornyn said there would be a fourth day of debate Monday on the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla R. Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans.
Cornyn rejected the idea that proceeding with a de facto rule change to end filibusters against judicial nominees would lead to a "constitutional crisis." He added, "This is a controversy, a disagreement, not a crisis."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402603/posts <-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1404953/posts <-
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1402821/posts <-
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200505130811.asp <-
I haven't come up with what I think is a clear expression of making the change by "using the rules," but in my mind it is basically saying that nominees don't fit in the framework of Rule XXII, and that a better approach is to debate, then when all Senators have enough information to make a call in good conscience, to move to the vote. Could the Senate conduct an impeachment trial, then refuse to vote at its conclusion? Of course not. Likewise, when considering a nominee, does it make sense, at the conclusion of consideration and debate, to not take the vote? Of course not.
You'll need to do some digging around to find links to the source for 1787 Convention. But if one thinks about it, it makes perfect sense that the Constitution contemplates Nominations will be handled differently from legislation. It isn't right to take a legislation tool, and apply to a nominee. Heck, cloture didn't even EXIST until 1917.
It would in effect give the power of nomination to a MINORITY in the Senate, and take it away from the President.
The power to reject is the power to choose.
If a motion was made to table the nominee, those in opposition to the nomination could vote to table/scuttle/dispose of the nomination. It would take a simple majority to do so. Not a 41 vote minority.
During my research of Riddick's Senate Procedure (in a so-far failed attempt to find the "talk or vote" rule), I noticed that Senate procedure requires a 2/3rds supermajority to indefinitely postpone consideration of a Treaty. The 2/3rds hurdle for indefinite postponement of a treaty conflicts with the hurdle raised under cloture (technically, because motions to table are not debatable - but 2/3rds is a higher hurdle than the 60 votes recited in Senate Rule XXII), and it also provides a point of argument against the propriety of using Rule XXII, cloture, in the context of Nominations.
Point being that the Senate can't dispose of a treaty by not voting on it. Tabling it indefinitely (effectivly the same as outright rejection) takes 2/3rds. And you are right, it is easier to reject with fewer votes - but THEY VOTE on the treaty. Not on some in-between procedural step that determines whether they vote or not.
A Senator can't hide behind unanimous consent or cloture to kill a treaty, put simply.
I was going to try to answer that question, but in a much more feeble way than you did, so I'll just go into my stream of conciousness on Specter's dilemma in all of this which is that one of the compromises suggested was that the Republicans would agree not to block anyone in committee, a move that would, I think, severely diminish Specter's power. I can't help wondering if his going along with the cloture motion which he seemed so reluctant to do was prompted at least in part by his desire to hold on to that power. Then again, maybe I'm just tired and "overthinking."
"Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), who was traveling today. "
If Frist was a leader, the vote would have been last week instead of next week - and he would expel from the caucus any Republican that votes against it.
treated? Heck, I hope its contageous! But that it's only "catching" among the pubbies....
How do you visit that site without getting sick to your stomach?
More likely Cornyn got the honor because the nominee is from Texas, and thus it would fall to either him or to KBH. Since KBH is trying to broaden her appeal as she runs for governor, she was probably happy to let Cornyn carry the water on this one. She has taken a very public stand for the nominee, so she won't hurt herself with the conservatives by yielding to Cornyn.
As for the Committee, I am concerned. Committee rules require one member of the minority to agree to vote on the candidate. Too lazy to retrieve the link right now, but I looked it up sometime in the past few days.
LOL. I don't. I bumped into that using a google search on "nominees" "clinton" "bush" or something like that. It seems a good summary, but I can't vouch for its accuracy.
It is some serious grunt work to account for all of the judicial nominees and present a useful summary. The DEM politicians are misleading (as usual) with carefully selected "facts."
"BOOM"
Ugh, I didn't know that.
"If Frist was a leader......
says the man with no power and not elected to the senate.. whining from the cheapseats.
outbreak of gonads.........
must be all those boner commercials
10 GOP, 8 DEM.
http://judiciary.senate.gov/members.cfm
But you are right. In order to move to the vote, one of the minority must agree.
IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE
The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a rollcall vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.
Aha, thanks. (You are not lazy!)
A pretty even piece from the WP..Reading between the lines, I think that the nuclear option guarantees a filabuster of Bolton, simply because the Dems want to see if Frist will break his pledeg NOT to do so for anything except judicial nominations. And that will make the Dems look even more stupid..
And obstructionist.
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.