Senate Blocks Confirmation of Court Nominee Liu

Source: Bloomberg

By Laura Litvan - May 19, 2011 2:51 PM ET

The U.S. Senate blocked the nomination of Goodwin Liu to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the first rejection of one of President Barack Obama’s judicial choices.

With 60 votes needed to end debate on the University of California law professor’s nomination, the largely party-line tally was 52 in favor of proceeding to a confirmation vote, 43 against. Joining 51 Democrats voting to end debate was Senator Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, while 42 Republicans and Senator Ben Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, opposed the motion. Republican Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah voted “present.”

The procedural vote came after more than a year of delays in the confirmation process stemming from Republican opposition to Liu’s selection.

Opponents said Liu, 40, lacks necessary courtroom experience and has activist judicial views reflected in writings and speeches supporting expanded welfare rights, gay marriage and privacy rights. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Liu as a judge might favor contemporary ideas over the Constitution’s legal standards.



Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-05-19/senate-blocks-confirmation-of-court-nominee-liu-1-.html

---

One would think that a Democratic Administration and a Democratic Senate could get a judge onto the bench.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Can you tell me how Democrats can bring an end to the filibuster rule?

I've always wondered why the Senate Dems didn't just end the filibuster in Feb. 2008, so that they could get progressive legislation passed. It seems to me that they are playing on the same team as the republicans, a team that is sponsored by corporate America.

I know that Gary Hart used to be a Senator, but he could be wrong here.

So, since you are an expert on the Senate, could please tell me if the following article is true? I always thought it was true, but many posters at DU have told me that it is not true. Thanks!

How To End the Filibuster Forever
The Senate can kill the rule any time! And with only 51 votes.
By Akhil Reed Amar and Gary Hart Posted Thursday, Jan. 6, 2011, at 2:11 PM ET

Is the Senate like Cinderella—does it have the power to transform itself in only one limited moment, at the opening of the new Congress? That is one of the two big questions in the filibuster-reform debate that is now taking center stage in the United States Senate. The other is whether the Senate can change the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, regardless of what the rule itself seems to say. The short answers to these questions are that there are no magic moments in the Senate and no need to muster 60 votes to repeal the filibuster rule. The upper house has the clear constitutional authority to end the filibuster by simple majority vote on any day it chooses.
snip---
The Times and others are right about the power of the simple majority—more about why in a minute—but wrong about the Cinderella power of the Senate's opening day. A simple majority of determined senators may lawfully change the filibuster rules, even if the existing Senate rules say otherwise, at any time.
snip---
Unlike the House, the Senate need not begin its session by approving procedural rules. The internal Senate rule allowing filibusters—Senate Rule 22—is not approved biennially at the outset of each new congressional term. Rather, this old rule, initially adopted by the Senate in the 1910s and significantly revised in the 1970s, simply carries over from one Congress to the next by inertia, since the Senate is a continuing body. Similarly, on Day One in the Senate, no leadership elections need occur. The old Senate's leaders simply continue in place, and the Senate can oust the old leaders at any time—by a simple majority vote. The same goes for old rules, including the filibuster rule. It's that simple.

http://www.slate.com/id/2280238/

I really wish the Senate Dems would end the filibuster. They are allowing republicans to destroy our country.

I have a great deal of admiration for both Amar and Hart; in fact, I have several books by them. Although I don't recall claiming to be an expert in the rules of the Senate, I know more than most, although, given the high level of illiteracy about the workings of the Senate, that isn't saying all that much.

Give me time to read and absorb Amar and Hart's argument and I'll get back to you.

pretending to be a democrat

Be a leader. That makes people WANT to vote Democratic.

do they not understand the concept of a two party system, that one party represents the other half of the same fucking country they claim to love sooooo much. What they are doing is crippling the system for absolute POWER. RICO the whole fucking Republican Party. I'm sick of their sociopathic BS.

It isn't just the media -- many in our Party just turn the other legislative cheek.

Regarding RICO: Hell, yeah. The whole bloody lot of them.

when the GOP assholes pout and stomp their feet!

Which would be all of the time. They are the party of poutrage.

Stupidity to have been stopped includes more than stolen and paperless elections, campaign finance reform, ENRON energy policy, ignored warnings of Al Qaeda attack plans, outted CIA spies and networks, trick fiscal policies benefitting warmongers, Big Oil and the ultrarich, a drowned city, a DoJ picked and staffed by Karl Rove and a pair of illegal, immoral and unnecessary wars that have bankrupted the country, along with a multi-trillion Wall Street crony bailout. To stop any and all of that, I'd still be filibustering.

anything to counter it...Amazing. Sometimes it looks like the repukes are playing chess and the Dems are playing checkers.

Lisa Murkowski is the ONLY republican that had said (pre-Obama) that she wouldn't filibuster judicial nominees.
She stuck to her word by voting 'yes' today.
The other republicans that said the same thing broke their word today.

Hatch (R-UT) didn't vote 'no' but he did vote 'present' - so that is the same thing as blocking the nomination since he was NOT a 'yes' vote.
And Lamar Alexander (R-TN) broke his word and voted 'no'.

There are a couple of other republicans that Harry Reid mentioned in his pre-vote statement but I can't remember which states they were from, Reid did not mention them by name only by state and Sr/Jr status.

Below are some related articles with republican quotes:

Republicans Block 9th Circuit Nominee
http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2011/05/republicans-block-judicial-nomination-of-goodwin-liu.html

Snowe, Collins, join GOP filibuster of Liu judicial nomination
http://www.pressherald.com/blogs/maine_washington_politics/122249204.html

In the Senate. Only 1 Democrat voted no and he is up for re-election in 2012 in deep red Nebraska. I will vote for Ben Nelson here in Nebraska in 2012 because he is the best choice on the ballot.

Goodwin Liu was not dumb and not white. Those were his biggest flaws. It's really a shame that a nominee like this can't get an up or down vote in the Senate. A disgrace, really.

for cloture, anyway?

It would be nice if the super majority rule existed on the supreme court.

And the GOP is paying him back.