Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fact Sheet: Key Initiatives in the President's State of the Union Message
The White House ^ | 28 January 2003 | President George W. Bush

Posted on 01/29/2003 8:31:33 AM PST by PhiKapMom

For Immediate Release
January 28, 2003

Fact Sheet: Key Initiatives in the President's State of the Union Message



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: initiatives; presbush; stateofunion
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last
To: Bonaparte; PhiKapMom
Thank you for that link. The article has lots of info on D's conducting filibusters, but still did not explain *what* a filibuster is! So I did a google and found the following at the C-SPAN Congressional Glossary:

A Filibuster is the term used for an extended debate in the Senate which has the effect of preventing a vote. Senate rules contain no motion to force a vote. A vote occurs only once debate ends.

Therefore I conclude that the D's will attempt to continue debate on judicial nominees, ad infinitum, unless the R's can garner 60 supporting members to vote for an end to the debate? However, as the definition above says, "Senate rules contain no motion to force a vote." So I guess I am still a bit confused. Can 60 votes end debate and force a vote on a judicial nominee, or can the debate continue until doomsday?

In my most recent hard-copy issue of Human Events, in the Capital Briefs section, I read that "Hatch announced last week that he would drop the requirement that both senators from a given state submit positive reviews - or 'blue slips' - for a nominee to receive committee consideration.....if committee Republicans go along with Hatch, Democrats will have only the filibuster as a recourse against conservative judges."

The first part of this info is easy to understand - that denying 'blue slips' to nominees is a form of filibuster (obstructionism). The short quip does not, however, go into detail about the one final filibuster left to the D's. Is it prolonged debate without a vote?

PhiKapMom, I would guess that a thread devoted exclusively to getting out the word about a Democrat filibuster of judicial nominees in the Senate, complete with definitions!, would be useful. What do you think? Maybe you have already done that, and I just missed the thread. President Bush's judicial nominations are the most important function of his career in the White House. I believe America's future hangs in the balance on these nominees alone. I wish it were not so, but who can deny it after witnessing so much judicial activism?

41 posted on 01/30/2003 3:39:08 AM PST by .30Carbine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Thanks for posting this. I think you have a great idea about putting up a thread on filibusters because I have seen a lot of misinformation about them.

Ping me and I will use the new Bush 2004 ping list I have put together as this would be very worthwhile background information for all of us to keep handy.

Thanks again!

42 posted on 01/30/2003 6:56:44 AM PST by PhiKapMom (Bush/Cheney 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Here you go. It's called "cloture" and has been around since 1917. As I said before, the way to head off or stop a filibuster (which is now procedural, not spoken) is to threaten the filibustering party with dire consequences that a simple majority can inflict on them. At least, that's what a majority party with any cojones will do. If the majority leadership is weak, as it was under Lott, they will offer inducements instead.
43 posted on 01/30/2003 2:11:15 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: PhiKapMom; Bonaparte
Found this quote in the Washington Times:

"Judicial nominees have rarely been subjected to a filibuster, which is when senators speak at length on the Senate floor to prevent a measure from receiving a vote. To break a filibuster in the Senate, 60 votes are necessary."

November 24, 2002

44 posted on 01/30/2003 2:44:47 PM PST by .30Carbine (Well THAT settles THAT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
Thank you! That is a fantastic link.
45 posted on 01/30/2003 2:58:52 PM PST by .30Carbine (FReepers are the greatest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
"But they [Republicans] are in control..."

Six Republican Turncoats Defect On ANWAR Drilling.

Didn't notice any democrats crossing the aisle on this matter.

46 posted on 01/31/2003 8:34:42 PM PST by Bonaparte
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Bonaparte
They crossed on a lot of others. But hey, it would never be enough would it? And then there would be some other excuse.
47 posted on 01/31/2003 9:00:10 PM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson