Obama nominee might be blocked in Senate by Republicans without a filibuster!

[Better Believe It]

Obama nominee expected to be rejected by Senate Wednesday
From Dana Bash
CNN Senior Congressional Correspondent
May 12, 2009

WASHINGTON (CNN) — The Senate Democratic leadership is preparing to lose a vote Wednesday morning on the confirmation of David Hayes as Deputy Secretary of Interior. If that happens, it would be the first time Congress voted to reject one of President Barack Obama’s nominees.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s spokesman, Jim Manley, told CNN that Democrats believe Republicans will vote in lockstep to block Hayes’ nomination, and therefore, it will fail.

Republican objections to Hayes appear to have little to do with him or his qualifications, and more to do with an Obama administration policy.

Specifically, Utah Republican Robert Bennett has been leading his party’s opposition to Hayes because of an Obama decision to cancel oil and gas leases in Utah.

If Republicans do successfully block Hayes’ nomination, it will be the starkest illustration yet of what it means for Democrats to have 59 seats – just one shy of a filibuster-proof majority – as the Minnesota Senate race remains unresolved.

Manley said that if Hayes does in fact lose the vote, as Democrats expect, it is unclear whether the White House will pull his nomination, or try to find a way to revive it.

Please read the complete article at:

http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/05/12/obama-nominee-expected-to-be-rejected-by-senate-wednesday/

The above article suggests that because Democrats lack a "filibuster-proof majority", the Republicans will conduct a successful filibuster against the Hayes nomination.

If there actually is a Republican filibuster against the nomination, I'd like to know what Republican Senator(s) took the floor during the filibuster, how long they held the floor, how many times the Democratic majority took a cloture vote to end the debate and what the vote was on those cloture motions.

Let's see if a real Republican filibuster takes place. Or will it be a fake "phantom" Republican filibuster that some Democratic Senators are so quick to embrace as a valid excuse for their incompetence and weakness?

I think it's highly unlikely that an actual Republican filibuster will take place. It appears that the mere threat of a filibuster is enough to encourage some leading Democrats to wave the white flag of surrender to Republican demands.

We may find out if it's business as usual tomorrow on the Senate floor .... whereby the small Republican minority gets to run things and the Democratic majority operates as if it's the minority.

[Thrill]

1. Harry Reid has got to go. This guy is a wimp

Make them filibuster. And please explain to me why this wimp still hasn't brought Dawn Johnson's nomination up for a floor vote

[Honeycombe8]

3. You can say that again. How long are his constituents going to cont. to elect him? nt

[Better Believe It]

2. Here's how the nomination can be kept alive and be passed. It's very simple!

"it is unclear whether the White House will pull his nomination, or try to find a way to revive it."

Here's a real simple and not so novel way to keep this nomination alive and even pass it.

Make the Republicans filibuster against it until 60 votes are obtained to end the debate!

It might take a few hours or perhaps even a day to two to get the 60 votes,but if the Republicans want to be viewed as obstructionists don't get in their way!

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

And don't blame it all on Senator Milktoast Reid. Other Senate leaders can speak up on this as can Joe Biden and the national leader of the Democratic Party .... that would be President Obama.

[Better Believe It]

13. They stopped the nomination without a filibuster.

57 voted cloture to "end debate" without any filibuster debate by Republicans!

The Republicans must really love these Senate rules made by the Democratic leadership in the Senate.

The Senate leadership can change the rules.

But they won't!

That would eliminate a wonderful excuse for timidiy, inaction and incompetence.

[BzaDem]

4. The Republicans do not actually have to fillibuster no matter what the Democrats do. That is a myth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/the-myth-of-the-filibuste_n_169117.html

"To get an idea of what the scene would look like on the Senate floor if Democrats tried to force Republicans to talk out a filibuster, turn on C-SPAN on any given Saturday. Hear the classical music? See the blue carpet behind the "Quorum Call" logo? That would be the resulting scene if Democrats forced a filibuster and the GOP chose not to play along.

As both Reid's memo and Dove explain, only one Republican would need to monitor the Senate floor. If the majority party tried to move to a vote, he could simply say, "I suggest the absence of a quorum."

The presiding officer would then be required to call the roll. When that finished, the Senator could again notice the absence of a quorum and start the process all over. At no point would the obstructing Republican be required to defend his position, read from the phone book or any of the other things people associate with the Hollywood version of a filibuster.

"You cannot force senators to talk during a filibuster," says Dove. "Delay in the Senate is not difficult and, frankly, the only way to end it is through cloture.""

[quakerboy]

5. It is all a "polite fiction"

Democrats don't actually have to allow fillibuster's to stay in the senate rules. Do you remember the nuclear option? Its all a polite fiction, and if one side breaks the facade of following the rules, then so can the other. And right now, the Pubs lose more if everyone were to start playing hardball.

[quakerboy]

6. Wait.. thanks for the article.

Reid was the last one to actually do an old-school talk it out fillibuster? did not know that.

[Hippo_Tron]

8. They could have the sargeant at arms drag everybody to the floor and seal the doors

And make them continue to call quorum calls until they give up. That said, it isn't worth doing this over a nominee.

[hulklogan]

7. Isn't this all part of the "Party of No" strategy our party is running?

If Reid and the rest of the weak Senate leadership really wanted this nomination to go through, they would find a way to make it happen. If it fails, they'll have something to hit the Republicans with for a week or two, especially if this story is accurate in reporting that it will fail for such personal and petty reasons.

I can already hear this on the news this week, "The Party of No will vote no on everything, even the nomination of a well-qualified candidate to a Deputy Secretary position. They're not interested in helping the country move forward, they just want to vote no because somebody hurt their feelings."

In fact, Reid's spokesperson already gave a similar statement on the subject.

[Justice]

9. Gee Dana, where is the paragraph that says, the President is entitled

to pick his team, the Senate must confirm absent some issue with the person. We kept hearing this over and over again with Bush.

[Better Believe It]

10. Why do Democratic Senators continue to whine about non-existent filibusters?

They can change the rules if they wish including using the so-called nuclear option.

It's now clear they won't.

They prefer to make concession after concession to the Republicans until appointments and legislation are approved by Republicans Senators and their Democratic conservative supporters.

Enough excuses for inaction.

Shit or get off the pot.

Change the rules and make the Republicans filibuster.

[annabanana]

11. Why are they picking on Hayes? He seems like a perfect nominee. . n/t

[annabanana]

12. Voting now!

[Justitia]

14. Up or Down Vote! Up or Down Vote! Up or Down Vote! - remember that? -eom

[bigwillq]

15. Why didn't

Kerry or Mikulski vote? Anyone know? Were they just present? :shrug: And why did Reid vote No? Cause he knew there wasn't enough votes? :shrug: