Posted on 05/20/2005 3:22:31 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Before 1917, it would have been impossible to block a nominee with refusal to grant cloture. Cloture didn't exist.
Could a nomination be tabled? Procedurally incorrect, but if not, it would take a simple majority to table. A minority of members cannot table.
No. Before cloture, a Senator could refuse unanimous consent, and absent unanimous consent, the vote could not be taken. The ultimate supermajority - unanimity - would be required to get to the vote. The tool of cloture was introduced as an alternative to this impractical, but REAL hurdle.
"Rush raised this question, Would this satisfy the "advise and consent" in the Constitution?"
It would. However a lawsuit by the Dems would occur and this would hold things up for months. It is better to do it out in the open so no one can hide.
Last night on the Sean Hannity show, Dick Morris had some words of wisdom for the Repubs.
He said the party who will come out ahead here is the party who is able to manouever the other one into appearing obstructionist to the American Public.
His suggestion was to conduct business as usual and force the Dems to run an old fashion 24 hour a day, seven day a week filibuster on the judicial appointees, exemplifying for the American public their outrageous obstructionist tactics.
Eventually, in such a scenario, the Dems will be forced to stop it when it becomes apparent that action on essential legilsation is being held up by their bad boy tactics.
Comments?
He's a cardiac surgeon.
They all have great big brass bal*s.
I mean, think about what they do.
He may be stupid, he may be naive, he may be a lousy politician-but he's got stones, fer shure.
My crystal ball says the same. {g}
I voted against Grow Greener too. It’s a sham that we’re all going to wind up paying for, for all the reasons you said.
He, too, was on the ballot on Tuesday … and lost his race. Why? Because the average voter is not aware of his superb and selfless leadership accomplishments of the past year (very few people pay attention to local politics unless it involves their own ox being gored) and because his opponent, a virtual unknown who hasn't so much as attended a township meeting, enjoyed first position on the ballot, by the luck of the draw…..Just serves to shore-up my negative opinion of the flimsy basis upon which the average voter generally casts his vote, if indeed he bothers to vote at all.
What a shame! And I agree with your negative opinion about voter reasoning.
I’ve been watching Jeopardy on and off for the past few weeks. I don’t recognize your friend’s name but I'll be watching the finals next week too.
Email to follow.
BTW...there is a difference between having a lot to say, and talking a lot.
If those words were taken at face value, not even the whole 100 of them voting together could block a nomination.
Republican senators ought to be named a new specie, since they, unlike others, reproduce without gonads. Come to think of it, they don't reproduce.
The press is trying their best to spin this in favor of the 'Rats. On one radio newscast last night, they reported that their poll (I think it was ABC News) showed strong support for the 'Rat position. However, when they read the actual poll question, it asked the respondent whether the Senate should look closely at judicial nominees or simply rubber stamp anyone the President nominates. Something like 75% said the Senate should look closely at the nominees, which the media "interpreted" as support for filibustering.
Of course, that was a ludicrous interpretation of the poll. Neither President Bush nor GOP Senators have ever suggested that the Senate should just rubber stamp nominees without checking them out first. All of these nominees that are being filibustered have passed through hearings (at which their opponents were allowed to argue against their confirmation), passed the committee, survived rigorous debate, and now have the votes to be confirmed. In other words, they've met the criteria to be confirmed as that criteria has traditionally been understood. The 'Rats have changed the tradition of the Senate by imposing a 60 vote cloture requirement.
The news reports often make it sound like President Bush is arrogantly demanding that the Senate rubber stamp his nominees while the 'Rats are merely wanting to do their job. Some of these nominees have been pending for years.
...or the Democrats call off their filibuster.
The way out isn't just by compromise.
-PJ
That is the sound bite prepared by the DNC. I can't think of a better sound-bite counter argument than the GOP has come up with. Sad to say, the matter is too complex for most of the public.
It is logically false to equate a failure to obtain unanimous consent or cloture with a vote to reject. Under the first, which the DEMs have implemented, the President is denied the appointment of officers of his choosing, and the denial is implemented by less than a simple majority of Senators. Under a rule of "to reject the nominee, you must vote on the nominee," a simple majority of Senators would consent to the officers the President has nominated. The difference to the President is between having, and not having the officer of his preference.
The Senate has erected a supermajority hurdle of ITS OWN CHOOSING. A Senate Rule that did not exist until 1917. A Senate Rule that has been amended on numerous occasions. If the Senate is free to erect its own hurdle for nominees, what's to prevent setting it at 2/3rds, or 3/4th, or 9/10ths? Or to prevent a SINGLE Senator from withholding the vote - exactly the way the Senate worked before cloture? The Constitution, say the DEM Senators, gives the Senate the power to make its own rules. They are right, and they are wrong.
While the Senate is free to make rules that affect only it, it cannot make rules that diminish the power of another branch. The Senate has a DUTY to advice and consent, confirm or reject, each nominee; just as surely as it has a DUTY to render judgement in an impeachment trial. It cannot conduct the trial, and then refuse to vote. It cannot consider and then refuse to vote on a treaty. It cannot consider a nominee, and then refuse to vote on the nominee.
In contrast, the power of each House to make its own rules, recited in Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution, clearly applies to matters PURELY internal to its workings. "shall be the Judge of Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own members ... may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a member."
Excellent analysis!
The relevant question is "after the Senate has looked closely at a judicial nominee, should it vote on the nomination or not?
Neither President Bush nor GOP Senators have ever suggested that the Senate should just rubber stamp nominees without checking them out first.
Nobody seriously suggests a rubber stamp in any event. The nominees risk being rejected in the Senate vote, if the Senate would just get around to the vote. The excuse of "well, a minority of Senators have voted to not vote" is lame.
So you consider calling someone a keyboard cowboy deep intellectual commentary rather than just throwing an insult? You've told us a lot about yourself, then.
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.