Tag Archives: cloture

Absence same as 'no' vote? No … it isn't

I really do like having Ted Cruz in the U.S. Senate.

He offers so much grist for folks like me on which to comment.

The freshman Republican senator said this the other day about his absence on a vote that confirmed Loretta Lynch as the latest U.S. attorney general: “Absence is the equivalent of a ‘no’ vote.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/ted-cruz-loretta-lynch-no-vote-explanation-117528.html?hp=l2_4

There you have it. He missed the vote because he had a prior commitment to attend a fundraiser back home in Texas. Cruz had voted earlier on a motion to end a filibuster on Lynch’s nomination; he voted to keep the filibuster going.

The filibuster was broken, the vote took place, Lynch had the votes to win confirmation. So, what was the point of Cruz being there to cast his expected “no” vote on Lynch?

Well shoot, senator. It mattered because you didn’t put it on the record. It’s not part of the Senate’s official voting record.

I’m still uncertain precisely why Cruz disapproves so strongly of Lynch’s ascending to the office of attorney general, other than her support of President Obama’s executive order granting temporary amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. I guess Cruz doesn’t much like the notion of an attorney general supporting the policies of the president who appoints her to the Cabinet, where everyone serves at the pleasure of the president of the United States.

That’s been the mantra of other senators who opposed Lynch, even those who said upon the announcement of her appointment that she is “highly qualified.” Some of those former supporters changed their mind when she declared her backing for the president’s action on immigration.

I think it’s strange. Then again, that’s just me.

What the heck. Sen. Cruz was entitled to attend the fundraiser. He’s running for president, after all. Let’s not assume, though, that this issue of non-voting on this confirmation — as well as other key votes he’s missed while campaigning for the White House — will disappear.

It’s the price a sitting member of Congress pays when he or she seeks the highest office in the land. Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton paid it when they ran in 2008. Sen. Cruz can expect the same thing in 2016.

 

 

Senate GOP demonstrates its petulance

U.S. Senate Republicans angry over Democrats’ changing of the rules regarding filibusters have decided to let their Democratic “friends” do all the work of the Senate just before the start of the Christmas recess.

That’ll teach those Democrats, by golly.

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/193622-lawmakers-anxious-to-get-home-as-senate-deadlocked-over-nominees

Plans call for GOP senators to be absent over the weekend, except for perhaps one senator who can raise any objections over procedural matters. However, when it comes time to vote on President Obama’s nominees for various executive positions or judgeships, Democrats — who control a majority of the Senate — are on their own.

Seems that Republicans are still steamed over Democrats’ change of the cloture rule that used to require 60 votes to end a filibuster, which Republicans had employed regularly over Obama nominations. The new rule now enables senators to curtail a filibuster with just 51 votes.

Democrats and independents who vote with them number 55 in the Senate. Should be smooth sailing for nominations that had been blocked, right? Not exactly.

Republicans are banking on Democrats having difficulty rounding up 51 senators, which they would to have a quorum in the chamber.

It’s Republicans’ hope, then, that they can block these nominations from going through just by taking leave of the Senate.

It will fall on Democratic Senate leaders to ensure they have enough votes to do the business to which Americans elected them to do. One of their duties is to confirm presidential appointments of qualified individuals to key executive and judicial branch positions.

Such petulance is quite unbecoming.

Merry Christmas, Senate Republicans.