ConfirmThem

Mark it -- DiFi will not vote in favor of Southwick (I'm not saying she will vote against Southwick, rather she will not vote period which is the same as a no vote). The WH for some reason -- delusional or just plain ignorant --- thinks it can push through Southwick. I think they have forgotten that DiFi voted in favor of Southwick for a reason (and no politican is completely altruistic). I have seen nothing showing that the WH or the Senate Republican leadership have done anything to support DiFi other than the obvious "we are glad she voted for Southwick." If I'm missing something I'd like to know.

Why should Reid schedule more than one cloture vote? If the Senate votes for cloture, Southwick wins and gets confirmed. However, if the Senate votes against cloture, Reid and the liberal special-interest groups win. Why then would Reid grab defeat from the jaws of victory by scheduling a second cloture vote that could ruin everything? It doesn't make sense. If Southwick loses the cloture vote next week, I would expect his nomination to be permanently set aside by Reid. Reid could easily justify his actions without fear of repercussion by claiming that Southwick has been given his chance and failed, and now it's time to move on to other more "important" matters.

I do not know the Senate rules of procedure, but perhaps the reason for scheduling multiple votes is because McConnell asked Reid for them. Perhaps under the Senate rules a person voting against cloture is entitiled to bring the issue of cloture up at a later time. McConnell therefore votes against cloture on the first vote to see where the votes are. If there are not enough votes (and I believe there won't) he can re-raise the cloture vote a second time (having voted against it the first time) if he thinks he has found the necessary votes. This is all speculation because, as I said, I do not know the Senate rules.

My speculation is premised on the second half of the sentence in yesterday's The Hill:

"Republicans say they appear to have a majority support in the Senate for the nomination, but are not sure if they have the 60 votes that appear to be needed for his confirmation."

IIRC, only the Majority Leader can do what you are suggesting. Reid could ask for a second vote if he voted against cloture, but not McConnell if he voted against cloture. I may be wrong. I know Frist when he was Majority Leader used to regularly change his cloture votes in order to get filibusters reconsidered, but I don't recall anybody else, either Republican or Democrat doing it. Is there anyone out there who knows the answer to this question?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/756216/posts

"Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD)then saved his vote until last, and when it was clear the Democrat-favored motion would not attract the necessary 60 votes, voted against it despite his having made an impassioned speech in its favor a short while before.

Under Senate rules, that gave Daschle the right to move that the vote be reconsidered, which he promptly did. Normally, a Senator sincerely on the winning side accompanies a motion to reconsider with a motion to lay that on the table, which buries the issue and seals the vote just taken. Daschle omitted the motion to table. Now the cloture motion is being asserted again."

Provides the following: "When a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may, on the same day or on either of the next two days of actual session thereafter, move a reconsideration; and if the Senate shall refuse to reconsider such a motion entered, or if such a motion is withdrawn by leave of the Senate"

Bobo's news story demonstrates how to get around Rule 13, but with McConnell on the prevailing side it would seem less likely for Reid to accomplish what Bobo's newsstory suggest, hence, Reid's statment that there may be multiple cloture votes next week.

http://rules.senate.gov/senaterules/rule13.php

"When a question has been decided by the Senate, any Senator voting with the prevailing side or who has not voted may, on the same day or on either of the next two days of actual session thereafter, move a reconsideration; and if the Senate shall refuse to reconsider such a motion entered, or if such a motion is withdrawn by leave of the Senate, or if upon reconsideration the Senate shall affirm its first decision, no further motion to reconsider shall be in order unless by unanimous consent. Every motion to reconsider shall be decided by a majority vote, and may be laid on the table without affecting the question in reference to which the same is made, which shall be a final disposition of the motion."

This makes it sound to me that if Southwick is filibustered, then a senator who voted AGAINST cloture would have to offer a motion to reconsider. In this case, it DOES sound like McConnell could vote against cloture in order to request that a filibuster be reconsidered. However, if the Reid then offers a simultaneous motion to table the request, he could block McConnell's motion for reconsideration.

Given Reid's statement about multiple cloture votes, I suspect that Reid is so confident that the 60 votes are not there that he does not mind giving McConnell another chance (fool's errand though it may be). Again, if anything, Reid's statement only underscores how bad a chance Southwick has.

http://public.cq.com/docs/cqm/cqmidday110-000002609218.html

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/vote-on-southwick-likely-next-week-2...

I have linked to the only two articles that I know detailing Reid's comments Friday about Southwick. Nowhere do they say that Reid said anything about Southwick's confirmation being dependent on multiple cloture votes. That appears to be just a part of Curt's analysis. The Hill article implies that McConnell and Lott asked for the cloture vote, so I am assuming that they feel confident that they have the votes to beat a filibuster. However, I can't imagine Reid letting such a vote happen unless he can guarantee that Southwick is filibustered. Who has the right number count? It's hard to tell. I still stick with my previous prediction, though, if Southwick fails the initial cloture vote, there will be no second cloture vote. As I said before, why would Reid want to turn a liberal victory into a defeat with a second cloture vote?

Reid may be VERY confident that the 60 votes are not there. The Hill article certainly seems to indicate that the Republican leadership in the Senate does not believe it has 60 votes. Why allow a second one? Perhaps to rub it in DiFi's face? I do not know but Curt would not have suggested "multiple votes" unless he heard something that neither of us know about.

As to rubbing it in DiFi's face. Just look what the Senate democratic leadership recently did to her legislation moving the perrenially vacant DC Circuit seat to the 9th. Obviously, Reid did not take kindly to DiFi's Southwick vote.

Why do you think McConnell and Lott are asking for a cloture vote now if they know it will fail?

Who is talking about McConnell "asking", perhaps the WH is pushing him to do so. We all know that the WH is not the best at reading the Seante. I'm sure McConnell told him the votes are probably not there but perhaps because they are delusional or ignorant the WH thinks otherwise.

The White House may not be good about reading the mood of the Senate, but Trent Lott sure is. Southwick is Lott's baby. With the failed nominations of Pickering and Wallace behind him, why would Lott allow the White House to sabotage any chance of Southwick getting confirmed by forcing a filibuster? I would think that Lott would be moving heaven and earth, despite anything the White House may want, to help Southwick and not hurt him. I just don't see the White House having much control over Lott, not after they backstabbed him earlier to install Frist as Majority Leader.

again by filibustering from the majority, just days after being punked by Rush Limbaugh to the tune of $2.1 mil? I doubt it (though there is no question Reid is a stupid, small, pathetic, disgusting, dishonest, shameless piece of scum).

Courtesy of How Appealing:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/20/AR200710...

"Next week, the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit is scheduled to hear al-Marri v. Wright, an important case involving the rights of those captured in the war on terrorism to challenge their detentions. Under normal circumstances, the full court, which reviews federal cases from Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia and the Carolinas, would have a complement of 15 judges. These are not normal times.

The court is operating with only 10 judges. Two of the vacancies are considered "judicial emergencies," meaning the seats have been unoccupied for more than 18 months.

The Bush administration is almost entirely to blame. For starters, the White House has been exceedingly slow in making nominations for the five vacancies; it made one selection in July and two in September. Making matters worse, President Bush unwisely ignored the bipartisan recommendations of Virginia Sens. John W. Warner (R) and James Webb (D)."

Not surprisingly this editorial does not mention that Conrad and Matthews. who both have the support of their homestate senators, have been waiting awhile. Once al-Marri has been argued then I think the Dem-controlled judiciary committee will be much more likely to begin processing those two for the simple fact that they will no longer be able to influence the outcome of al-Marri. This does not mean, though, that I think they will get hearings any time soon. If they get one, it will be next year with the Thurmond Rule in place. That way if the Dems can build up enough momentum against them they can be blocked a la Southwick.

There is no limit to the number of cloture votes on any given subject. The Senate has been known to conduct as many as six or seven cloture votes (with ZERO motions to reconsider being involved).

The GOP reaction to a failure to obtain cloture on a judicial nomination, if that's what happens, will be interesting.

My take is that our Senate betters have found another way to pervert the constitution, by erecting a Senate-imposed threshold for confirmation. Cloture is 60 votes today, but there is nothing in principle to stop the Senate from saying it takes 66 or 75 votes to confirm. In practice, that extent of lopsided margin will depend on one party having an overwhelming majority, but don't count it out. Before 1975, the margin to obtain cloture was 2/3rds.

Any 16 Senators can bring a cloture motion. That forces a cloture vote.

A motion to reconsider amounts to a do-over on any given vote, i.e., there wouldn't be a need to file a second cloture motion, just have a do-over on the same motion.

Here is Senator Reid's Friday statement.

Mr. REID. I have indicated, Madam President, we have a lot of work to do. The chairman of the Judiciary Committee and I have stated on a number of occasions that on controversial judicial nominations we are not going to move on those until the minority tells us that is what they want to do. One of those nominations is Judge Southwick. That matter was reported out of committee sometime ago, and both Senator Leahy and I have said that when the Republicans tell us they want to move to that nomination, we would do that. So sometime next week I am more than likely going to move to that matter. So I want everyone to know that, in fact, is the case.

I wouldn't take Senator Reid at his word on anything, but that's what he said.

It's possible that "arrangements have been made" and that there won't be a cloture vote on limiting debate before voting on the confirmation of Southwick. Just sayin', the only time there is a cloture motion is when one side or the other has a recalcitrant Senator who won't agree to get to the matter (objecting to a motion to proceed to consider is in play for legislation, but not for nominations) or who won't agree to limit debate, i.e. stop debating and vote.

Who knows what sort of crappy deals have been worked out, behind the scenes.

The Agenda is up on the Senate site for this week's SJC Hearing: an Assistant Attorney General and 4 District judges: Laplante (N.H.), O'Connor (Texas), Schroeder (North Carolina--miricle of miricles), and Thapar (Kentucky or Tennessee-forget which). A little more than I expected. Better than nothing.

Courtesy of How Appealing,

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071022/NEWS/71...

"Southwick's main supporters, Mississippi Republican Sens. Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, are optimistic the judge will be confirmed.

"(Lott) thinks this is a positive move," Lott's press secretary, Lee Youngblood, said of Reid's decision to schedule a confirmation vote.

He said Lott and Reid spoke Thursday night and agreed to move forward on the nomination.

Southwick's supporters expect Democrats to try to block the proposed confirmation with a filibuster, or extended debate. So, Reid will first call for a vote on whether to cut off debate.

At least 60 senators must vote yes on that motion for Southwick's confirmation hopes to survive.

Cochran's press secretary, Margaret McPhillips, said, "We're hopeful but in no way certain what the outcome (of that vote) will be."

If the vote to cut off debate succeeds, a final vote on Southwick's confirmation would follow."

So it sounds like Lott and Cochran initiated Southwick's cloture vote. That seems to indicate that they think they have enough votes to invoke cloture. I certainly hope so.

Tinder is on the SJC Agenda for this Thursday.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/meeting_notice.cfm?id=3004