Look below at the Roll call votes of republican Senators on cloture for Presidential appointments –
[Press is Sedated — Part I (a new series)]
" It's a dangerous thing to do, it's the wrong thing to do
. . . it
flies in the face of Senate history."
- - Remark by Sen. Orrin Hatch, then chairman of the Judiciary
committee, on the filibuster by Democrats [July 2003]
Maj. Leader Bill Frist and Senator Hatch tell you : when the Dems deploy the filibuster to deny the president his
appointments, their tactic is "unprecedented" and flouting the Constitution.
What can Frist and Hatch prove? Only that their memories are quite SHORT.
Despite what they tell you — the Roll Call record [below] shows that the Republicans made the President's
appointments jump a 60-vote hoop over and over again – since the mid-1970s.
See the roll-call votes — of illustrious GOP senators — on the flip.
[
Press is sedated — Part I
(a new series)]
NO constitutional precedent is being broken this time. If the Constitution were being flouted or violated (it is not), then it would be
in evidence here by THESE votes, below, over the last decades.
HERE ARE the recorded votes of Senators for cloture for the following nominations: Henry Foster for Surgeon General, Richard
Paez for circuit court judge, Sam Brown to Ambassador, Marsha Berzon for circuit court judge.
Again and again, senators from the Republican side opposed cloture and made appointees and judicial nominees garner far
more than the 50-vote majority threshold.
THESE Senators participated in some of these votes: Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), the former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Bill
Frist (R-Tn), Trent Lott (R-Miss), then majority leader; Rick Santorum (R-Pa), McCain (R-Az), and other leading Republicans + members
of the Judiciary Committee.
Here is access to the roll call of the fatal filibuster.
Sens. Hatch, Lott, Ashcroft, Grassley and others used the filibuster rule in 1995 to kill the nomination of Henry Foster to become US
Surgeon General. The cloture vote for Foster was 57-43, and that top position went UNFILLED for the next three years.
(Sen. John Ashcroft LED a filibuster to buck the next nominee for Surgeon General, David Satcher, in 1998, but was not successful.)
Note below the Consitution's wording is identical for judicial and other presidential appointees, granting discretion to Senators with the momentous, but concise phrase "Advice + consent" by the Senate. For appointments, cabinet, subcabinet, diplomatic and judicial, no vote count number or threshold is named.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Now he wants time limits on filibusters . . --->
However, BILL FRIST voted against Cloture for Circuit court judicial
nominee Richard Paez --after a 4-year wait for
Paez to reach the Floor of the Senate for a vote. (Paez was finally confimed, in March 2000.) Paez prevailed in that cloture motion; he
had enough backing to win handily the votes for cloture and then the nomination.
The Roll call record can be found here:
Still, one more maneuver to oppose Paez was tried. A motion to further postpone was made the next day.
31 Republican members (including Frist, Lott, Grassley, Santorum, DeWine, Brownback, Kyl, Ashcroft) cast votes "To indefinitely postpone the nomination of Richard A. Paez."
while 67 members voted for the nomination to proceed (not a formal cloture vote). That vote record is found here.
The vote to deny cloture failed because Paez had wider support:
59 members voted to confirm him, and he easily got far more than 60 votes to invoke cloture,
(Frist , Smith, DeWine, Inhofe, Brownback, etc. notwithstanding), 85 - 14.
Paez won confirmation, 59-39, 2 not voting, and 14 Republicans joined 35 Democrats in confirming the nominee one day after the cloture vote – four years after the date he was first nominated.
The roll-call of the confirmation vote is here.
The lesson from the historical record of rollcalls- If a nominee can gain enough support and consensus, he will overcome the most determined opposition.
For the preceding appellate nominee, Marsha Berzon —
Allard, Brownback, Bunning, Craig, DeWine, Enzi, Gramm, Helms, Tim Hutchinson, Inhofe, Murkowski, Shelby, and Smith (but not Frist) again voted against cloture, but cloture was successfully invoked, 86-13, and Berzon won confirmation, 64 - 34.
[Record of the roll call vote for the nomination is here; for the cloture motion to proceed, here [March 8, 2000]
US Constitution, Article 2, section2, clause2
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States . . . .
- - - - - - - -
Also denied a nomination vote was Sam Brown to be promoted to the rank of Ambassador to the CSCE. 51 Democrats + 5 Republicans favored shutting down debate to proceed to a vote.
56 members voted "yea" to close debate, but the Ambassador rank was turned down due to denial of cloture (56 -42) . The nomination did not succeed. Here is the roll call of the 42 "nays."
The roll call is found here
DID other appeals court nominees have to surmount a 60-vote hurdle?
Just ASK Stephen Breyer (now on the Supreme Court) when he was named by President Carter to be an appeals judge
on the 1st circuit in 1980.
BREYER had to overcome two cloture votes.
On the second time, he succeeded --> 68 -28.
Breyer was confirmed, 80-10, to the First circuit in 1980.
- - On the use of the filibuster by Democrats,
remark in July 2003 by Sen. Orrin Hatch,
then chairman of the Judiciary committee.
With no regard to the historical record ,
Senator Sessions complained bitterly (Sept. 2003) - - -
MARCH 12, 2003
theHill.com Hatch's position on cloture
. . . . Republicans are crying foul over the Democrats' use of the filibuster procedure when the Senate is in "executive calendar" -- that is, when executive branch nominations are being considered.
Speaking to the conservative Heritage Foundation, Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) made a distinction between filibustering in "executive calendar" and doing so in "legislative calendar" -- when the issues at hand originate in Congress.
http://www.thehill.com/news/031203/nominees.aspx
SO, Is the 60-vote hurdle for executive appointments truly a new invention of Democrats?
The Roll call record says no.
Without precedent? No again.
The only thing unprecedented is this: the current president refuses to nominate someone
with appeal to more than the bare majority of 50 members.
When Bush sends up a name that is not repellant and odious to 40 senators, THAT Nominee will prevail.
So, now I ask the kosmopolitan readers – what do you think about the attack on filbusters with 'no precedent?'