Nimue1995 1 Posted May 3, 2009 Share Posted May 3, 2009 A person on another forum that I belong to posted this recently and I've looked everywhere for an answer as to whether he's correct and have been unable to find anything about it. So since you all seem to have a pretty good handle on legislative requirements I thought I'd ask you. While Specter may end up giving the Senate their 60 votes it does NOT make them filibuster proof. Even if they get 60 votes (enough to break the filibuster) one other tiny little rule can trip them up. They need at least 1 (one) vote from the minority party. Now than Arlen is on their side, he is just one of the 60.Is this really the case or is this guy an idiot? Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 never heard of this provision but who knows. there are lots of wacky rules. Link to post Share on other sites
checkymcfold 0 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 he's making shit up, afaik. Link to post Share on other sites
brvheart 1,752 Posted May 4, 2009 Share Posted May 4, 2009 That guy is nuts, the senate is filibuster proof (with Specter PLUS now Franken) for at least 4 years... hopefully not more.There is a reason that you couldn't find any info on this... it's because it doesn't exist. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 That guy is nuts, the senate is filibuster proof (with Specter PLUS now Franken) for at least 4 years... hopefully not more.There is a reason that you couldn't find any info on this... it's because it doesn't exist.Not nuts. This rule applies to the judiciary committee. When a nominee is voted on if the majority party all votes for the nominee then at least one of the minority party must vote for the nominee to bring the nomination out of commitee.http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2009/04/justice-s...cording-to.html Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 Not nuts. This rule applies to the judiciary committee. When a nominee is voted on if the majority party all votes for the nominee then at least one of the minority party must vote for the nominee to bring the nomination out of commitee.http://www.dorfonlaw.org/2009/04/justice-s...cording-to.html fine, he is not nuts.....just wrong. This applies to one very small area.....and there is no way every GOP member will toe the line against a judicial nominee....not with both Bush appointees voting conservative 99.9999999% of the time. They cant afford to let the Dems gain steam with this "party of no" label. Besides, Susan Collins or some other sorta-moderate will jump the fence anyways.judicial nominees usually pass. Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 fine, he is not nuts.....just wrong. This applies to one very small area.....and there is no way every GOP member will toe the line against a judicial nominee....not with both Bush appointees voting conservative 99.9999999% of the time. They cant afford to let the Dems gain steam with this "party of no" label. Besides, Susan Collins or some other sorta-moderate will jump the fence anyways.judicial nominees usually pass.We are talking about the Senate Judiciary Committee which Susan Collins has nothing to do with. Lindsey Graham or Orrin Hatch may vote with the majority. As far as the "party of no" label.......that's BS. they need to stand up against things when it is total BullShit! Link to post Share on other sites
CaneBrain 95 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 We are talking about the Senate Judiciary Committee which Susan Collins has nothing to do with. Lindsey Graham or Orrin Hatch may vote with the majority. As far as the "party of no" label.......that's BS. they need to stand up against things when it is total BullShit!perception is reality. if they try to pick a fight over this it will look bad especially with both Bush appointees voting conservative always. they should concentrate on the economy and back off the other stuff......but if they wish to ignore the polls that is their choice.I bet several GOP members of the judiciary committee come along on this particular issue.I do believe there is also a senate wide vote on supreme court nominees, right? Or a congress wide vote? Because I know that Hatch or someone else recently pointed out that Obama did NOT vote for either Bush justice (Roberts/Alito).edit: from cnn-----"Conservative activists also made it clear that they're concerned about whether Republican senators have the stomach for this fight, since they know going in that Democrats have a nearly filibuster-proof majority.A Supreme Court justice nominee must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate before taking the bench." Link to post Share on other sites
JustDoIt 10 Posted May 5, 2009 Share Posted May 5, 2009 perception is reality. if they try to pick a fight over this it will look bad especially with both Bush appointees voting conservative always. they should concentrate on the economy and back off the other stuff......but if they wish to ignore the polls that is their choice.I bet several GOP members of the judiciary committee come along on this particular issue.I do believe there is also a senate wide vote on supreme court nominees, right? Or a congress wide vote? Because I know that Hatch or someone else recently pointed out that Obama did NOT vote for either Bush justice (Roberts/Alito).edit: from cnn-----"Conservative activists also made it clear that they're concerned about whether Republican senators have the stomach for this fight, since they know going in that Democrats have a nearly filibuster-proof majority.A Supreme Court justice nominee must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate before taking the bench."I never said the Republicans will stone wall in committee. I just answered a question that yes it is available in the judiciary committee and they can stop the nominee from ever reaching the senate floor.History tells us that they will not stone wall in committee, that's the Democrats thing. Link to post Share on other sites
ddudley 0 Posted May 6, 2009 Share Posted May 6, 2009 They cant afford to let the Dems gain steam with this "party of no poker" label.FYP Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now