Tay Tay! ,Please explain this. How can Frist prevent speeches?

[saracat]

Wouldn't that mean the filibuster doesn't exist? Isn't it also some kind of violation of "free speech" Doesn't that deprive constituents of representation in the "peoples house" and prevent the Senators from doing theor jobs? I just don't understand this! How is this possible? If a majorityLeader could always do this that would give him the power to completely quash all debate, wouldn't it? And then what was the point of the group of fourteen even meeting as there would never have been anything to save?
Or is it that afilibuster must always be a "surprise" and started before a Leader suspends speech? Please help me understand this! You are one of the few I know that might have the answer! Thanks.

Frist Not Allowing Senators To Speak On The Senate Floor About Alito...
The Huffington Post | Posted January 19, 2006 09:49 AM

READ MORE: Bill Frist, Samuel Alito, Supreme Court
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) tried to secure time this week to speak on the Senate floor about Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito. But Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist would not allow any time for speeches until January 25, a day after the Senate Judiciary Committee votes on Alito's nomination.

The normal practice of the majority leader is to give senators time to make floor speeches about the nominee.

Instead of speaking on the Senate floor, Senator Leahy will give a speech today at Georgetown University Law School. Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) will also give speeches today regarding Alito's nomination -- Kennedy at a think tank in Washington, and Durbin at Northwestern Law School.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/19/frist-not-allowing-senato_n_14083.html

[Mass]

1. I dont think he can if Reid does not agree.

It seems that he agreed.

[saracat]

3. Reid agreed?????

Why the F****ck would he do that?

[Mass]

5. Here is what he said yesterday

Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have announced on this side that there will be no morning business, no speeches, other than Senator Lautenberg and Senator Menendez to speak about this important day in soon-to-be Senator Menendez's life. That is an agreement I have with Senator Frist. Members desiring to speak on other issues will not be able to do that today.

It was done on an unanimous consent, which means that Reid could have objected. I dont think he would have won the vote, but, as he did not object, he agreed.

[saracat]

8. See my own reply. I think I figured it out.

BTW, at the risk of being stupid, what or who is the soon to be Senator Menedez/ Does he replace Coazine and is he the congressman?

[Mass]

yes to both questions.

[MH1]

2. Broken Link?

I'm getting Page not found.

:-(

[saracat]

4. Fixed link! Try this!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/01/19/frist-not-allowing-senato_n_14083.html

[MH1]

10. Thanks! n/t

[saracat]

6. I think I get it. They can still filibuster but they can't speak out about

Alito BEFORE he is out of committee. Frist is afraid that speeches could sway the committee vote. Constituent pressure etcetera. Well, we can pressure without speeches.What a weenie!

[sandnsea]

7. Speeches only AFTER the judiciary vote

They will still be able to make speeches, just not before the judiciary committee vote. That's to prevent there being any sort of rising up from the public that could bring Alito back in to answer more questions, or other people to testify or something. But I think this is a huge mistake on Frist's part, if Democrats use it correctly, to show how important the "abuse of power" issue really is. Edwards has a great statement too, I think the issues he raises are exactly on the mark.

[TayTay]

9. Rethug nastiness and pettiness

The Democrats have asked that the vote on Alito be delayed a week in the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is in accordance with the rules of that committee. The Rethugs wanted Alito confirmed and fitted with his new robes by this Friday. (1/20) Now that can't happen as the Judiciary Comm vote won't be until 1/24. (Judiciary Comm vote comes first. Then the floor vote of the entire Senate. The REthugs would prefer the 'Alice in Wonderland, Through the Looking Glass' version of 'verdict first, then trial,' but so far they have been thwarted in this attempt to pursue their idea of voting.)

Frist is, as we all know, a vindictive little piece of shit. In retaliation for denying the Dear Leader his Great Legislative Victory (TM) in the time frame that the Rethugs wanted, First is using his power as Majority Leader to put off calling the Senate into session. There was a pro forma session yesterday in which the Senate just swore in the new Senator from NJ and then called it a day and there will be a pro forma session tomorrow that will last maybe 2 minutes. (In order to get some minor stuff done.) If the Senate was in session, then Senators would indeed be able to come to the floor and talk about Judge Alito (you know, when they ask for permission to talk 'as if in morning business.') Fristy, that champion of free speech and open debate, is trying to keep any dissent down to a minimum and try and limit what gets on tv and in the papers on this.

Unfortunately, Frist the Cat-Killer has the right to do this. It marks him as a total douchebag, but he has the right to do this. He is not, technically, limiting debate, he simply is not letting the Senate go into session until after the Judiciary Comm vote. Then all the Dems are going to have to speak within small time frames, especially if Fristy files a call to limit debate. (This is the filibuster option. It must pass by a 3/5ths majority in order for debate to stop after either 48 or 72 hours, I don't remember which.)