GOP Files Cloture Motion to End Debate

Washington Post ^ | Friday, May 20, 2005 | William Branigin

[Steven W.]

OOPS sorry I was thinking the rich scumbag from NJ ... please excuse my failure - and GO PUBBIES! GO OWEN! GO JANICE BROWN!

[Steven W.]

that was who I mistakenly thought of Corzine..scumbag from NJ ;)

[Carolinamom]

#22......Excellent insight.

[Cboldt]

It merely states that the Senate is to advise and consent. If the Senate wanted to, they could create rules that required 99 votes in favor of any action. Obviously we want 51 votes on a judicial up/down, but it isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

There are a number of good arguments. But generally, that is some areas, the Senate has a duty, not a prerogative. In matteres of legislation, it has a prerogative. But the Senate handle maters other than legislation. Could the Senate refuse to hold an impeachment trial? The Constitution does not say they MUST. Could it refuse to vote at the end of an impeachment trial? The Constitution does not say they MUST. Could they stiffarm consideration of a treaty? The COnstitution does not say they MUST consider a treaty. Cann they refuse to give advice and consent to ALL of a president's nominees? The Constitution does not say they MUST approve even one.

Besires that, and the below, the founding fathers considered AND REJECTED a requirement for supermajority advice & consent.

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.

If Nominations were handled in corrolary fashion as Treaties are (according to Riddick's Senate Procedures), it would take a simple majority to postpone indefinitely the consideration of a nominee. Not a minority, as the DEMs have been asserting. Not a 41 vote minority, as the DEMs have successfully used to block voting on the nomination using the supermajority requirement of (the GOP asked for it!) coture as expressed in Senate Rule XXII.

http://www.gpo.gov/congress/senate/riddick/1441-1608.pdf
Appendix - Forms - and Index (see pp1521- and pp1554-)

The appendix to Riddick's has forms, process or procedure, and the phrases uttered by the chair. Compare the process of handling a Nomination (starting at page 1521) with the process of handling a Treaty (starting at page 1554). In particular, that for a treaty, a motion to postpone indefinitely (to not act) requires a two thirds majority.

This implies that a simple majority is required to postpone indefinitely consideration of a nomination, and that less than a simple majority is not sufficient to postpone indefinitely a decision on the nomination. How does handling of a nomination tie in with handling of a treaty? They are similar in that both, negotiation and presentation of treaties, and nomination of some government officers, are powers granted to the President.

Nominations and treaties are two powers named in Article II of the Constitution, the executive power, the President. The actions of the Senate in these areas affects more than the Senate, they affect also the power of the president to appoint the officers that he chooses to nominate. While the Senate is free to make rules that affect only it, it cannot make rules that detriment the power of another branch.

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."

[rogue yam]

Them Texans can git a might peevish, huh?

[sirchtruth]

There was a quib on today's Err America affiliated radio station by Jumpim' Jim "benedict" Jeffords, which he basically stated, "95% of the prez's nominees have been confirmed!" I kept thinking, "So Friggin What?!" Why won't you allow an up or down vote on the remaining 5%?

Every time I hear those PRIX Jeffords, Leahy, Dean, on the radio I wanna drop kick the thing into the pond!

I even called the radio station to see if I could ask the news director why he wouldn't air an opposing view ....Oh wait, I forget this is SOCIALIST, WACKO, LOONEYLEFT, CURTAINWEARIN' HIPPEE DOPESMOKIN', BLEEDINASSLIBERAL, CIVILUNIONIZED, SHOVEITDOWNYOURTHROAT, LEAKYLEAHY, JIMJUMPIN, BERNIEBIRDBRAINED, SCREAMINDEANVILLE Vermont!!

[Natural Law]

Don't get too excited yet. They gave themselves until Tuesday to find a way to weasle out of it.

[Soul Seeker]

Since you mention it, that is delicious irony.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

"An Outbreak of Gonads Among Certain Republican Senators

That can be series unless promptly treated by a doctor."

This sometimes leads to Elephantitis, a severe form of big gonads that has been VERY rare among this modern day GOP.

[MEG33]

Cornyn is my Republican Senator from the great State of Texas.

[bert]

.....They had to wait while Frist was out of town.....

Horse hocky .....When you believe yor own propaganda you have become delusional.

[Guillermo]

I belibe the current rule says once cloture is invoked, 100 hours of debate is to follow.

I guess the 100 hours ends Tuesday.

[Soul Seeker]

Thanks, but I confess, it wasn't my observation. A poster on the live thread discerned this slap delivered by Frist and collegues to Reid.

[bert]

Thanks for this great post.....

[Lecie]

Well give yourself 30 lashes with a wet noodle..as punishment...:)

[man from mars]

Could it be that the republican have a Democrat on there side? Someone that is leaving, etc? I am of the opinion that we have a Ace in the hole! With or without the Rino's or moderates of each party? Hillary may need a pardon soon?

[itsahoot]

Democrats Republicans just can't get it throught their heads that they are the minority Majority now.

There, thats better.

[Cboldt]

I belibe the current rule says once cloture is invoked, 100 hours of debate is to follow. I guess the 100 hours ends Tuesday.

Cloture can be characterized as a two step process. The objective of the process is two-fold, to set a definite time for debate, and when that time has expired, to move to the vote.

The reason cloture exists (it didn't, before 1917) is that otherwise, unanimous consent would be required to get to the vote. For virtually ALL of Senate history (until 2003), the inability to get to the vote was considered an issue only for legislation. Until 2003, the Senate acted (for the most part, some exceptions can be cited, but can also be differentiated) as though it had a duty to vote on nominees.

Anyway, the Senate realized that in order to pass (some) legislation, it needed a substitute for unanimous consent. Otherwise, a single Senator, objecting to the vote, could stifle getting to the vote. In practice the objectors were not solo, but in principle of unanimous consent, they could be.

So, in 1917, a new rule, referred to as "cloture," was put into effect. Cloture is a way to get to the vote over the absence of unanimous consent.

To invoke cloture, 16 or more Senators file a cloture motion. This is not debatable, and must be accepted by the chair. This is the first part of the cloture process, and is what happened today. This step alone does NOTHING. It signals the start of a clock.

One full day of business must proceed after a cloture motion is filed, before the second step takes place. In the parlance of Rule XXII, "one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one." At that time, a vote takes place. There is NO debate preceding the vote.

If the required number of Senators affirm the cloture motion, then debate is limited (to 30 hours, evenly divided), the nature of amendments to the underlying bill is limited, and a different set of rules is imposed until a vote is taken on the underlying matter. In this case, the underlying matter is the nominee.

If less than the required number of Senators affirm the cloture motion, the issue is still alive, and can be further debated, etc.

RULE XXII
PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Officer, or clerk at the direction of the Presiding Officer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Officer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule22.htm

[Cboldt]

My pleasure. Scrounging around to find the links to historical references.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

a disagreement, not a crisis.

Crisis? The secession of the Confederate States was a crisis. This is a disagreement. But if the Senate allows the filibustering of judicial nominees, even with a 55-45 majority in the Senate, that would be a crisis - raising the question as to whether the Senate will in future be able to any nominees to the federal bench.

Republicans never considered filibustering Ruth Bader Ginsburg - and she was a card-carrying member of lawyer for the ACLU. But of course if the Democrats were to find themselves in the analogous position ten years hence, they would revert to the same "majority rule" rhetoric they indulged when last they were in the majority . . . and in all likelihood they would then destroy the partisan judicial filibuster as suddenly as they created it.

And create it the present Democratic minority did. The so-called "precedent" for filibustering a judicial nominee was the extended (measured in days, not years) debate which was conducted on the elevation of Abe Fortas from Associate Justice to Chief Justice. And in that case support for the nomination, and even stronger (and historically vindicated) opposition to it, was substantively bipartisan. And it is a strange "filibuster" indeed which is conducted when the opponents of a confirmation outnumber the proponents of it . . . Its chief effect was to give Associate Justice Fortas time to gracefully withdraw his acceptance of the nomination for Chief Justice, so as to avoid the loss of face which a negative Senate vote would have entailed.