Senate Set for Historic Supreme Court Vote on Friday

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Interesting read on some of the rules on filibuster:

For well over a century, senators have used Senate Rule XXII to kill legislation. That rule allows that for any debatable question (meaning issue or measure) before the Senate, each senator is able to speak twice on each question in any one legislative day. A legislative day begins whenever the Senate is gaveled to order and ends whenever the presiding officer adjourns the Senate.

A filibuster occurs when a senator expects that a legislative measure he opposes might pass, so he takes all the time he can consume to keep talking about the issue to stall a final vote. If there are other senators who likewise want to defeat the measure, then when the first senator is too exhausted to talk any longer (because there are all sorts of Senate rules that burden a speaker’s ability to continue, such as the requirement that they stand rather than sit, and cannot have water or other drink on the Senate floor), one of his supporting colleague starts his own multi-hour speech, and they pass it down the chain from there.

The Senate must stay in session around the clock if it wishes to pass the measure. If at any point the Senate adjourns for the night, then when a new session begins the clock starts all over again.

The procedure for forcing an end to debate is called a cloture motion. It takes a 3/5 vote of the Senate (meaning 60 senators in the 100-member body) to invoke cloture. After that point, any additional debate is limited to 30 hours. When debate ends, the Senate holds a final vote. If 41 senators oppose cloture, the filibuster continues.

However, the Senate has two business calendars. One is legislative, where it works as the counterpart of the U.S. House to pass bills into law. The other is executive, where the Senate has a role in judicial appointments and high-level executive appointments.

Even though Senate Rule XXII does not explicitly say it applies only to legislative business, the reality is that senators never used it against judicial nominations, keeping the executive calendar to separate procedures.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/04/02/senate-historic-supreme-court-vote-friday/

[Night Hides Not]

The Senate can no longer be considered a "great deliberative body". Not with members than include Thad Cochran, Al Franken, and another 90 political hacks.

[Cripplecreek]

Historic as every other SC confirmation vote.

[corbe]

   Color me Skeptic, But I suspect Chucky and his comrades will go to the wall in opposition to Gorsuch, expending all their powder, forcing McConnell's hand, leaving them defenseless when Cruz replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg after the 2018 election, altering the balance of the Court, BUT I've been wrong on multiple occasions.

[Smokin Joe]

   Color me Skeptic, But I suspect Chucky and his comrades will go to the wall in opposition to Gorsuch, expending all their powder, forcing McConnell's hand, leaving them defenseless when Cruz replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg after the 2018 election, altering the balance of the Court, BUT I've been wrong on multiple occasions.

The court is not required to have 9 members. Loss of Ginsberg would shift the balance to 4-3,  more Originalist with Roberts being the really shaky one after his performance on the ACA. Getting two relatively Conservative justices would be a plus, but not necessarily necessary except to keep a Dem from filling the seats.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Extremely good odds that Ginsberg will not be the next to be replaced.

[libertybele]

   Color me Skeptic, But I suspect Chucky and his comrades will go to the wall in opposition to Gorsuch, expending all their powder, forcing McConnell's hand, leaving them defenseless when Cruz replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg after the 2018 election, altering the balance of the Court, BUT I've been wrong on multiple occasions.

Ted has stated several times that he's not at all interested in sitting on the bench.  As for Chucky and cronies of course they are going to oppose Gorsuch.  They are angry that Garland wasn't even voted on and feel that Scalia's replacement seat is being stolen as they know that in all likelihood Grosuch will be confirmed. I for one still believe that there is a possibility that Scalia didn't die of natural causes and it sure seems that things have backfired.

[libertybele]

Extremely good odds that Ginsberg will not be the next to be replaced.

Care to elaborate why?

[Smokin Joe]

Ted has stated several times that he's not at all interested in sitting on the bench.  As for Chucky and cronies of course they are going to oppose Gorsuch.  They are angry that Garland wasn't even voted on and feel that Scalia's replacement seat is being stolen as they know that in all likelihood Grosuch will be confirmed. I for one still believe that there is a possibility that Scalia didn't die of natural causes and it sure seems that things have backfired.

Yep, on all counts!

[Emjay]

   Color me Skeptic, But I suspect Chucky and his comrades will go to the wall in opposition to Gorsuch, expending all their powder, forcing McConnell's hand, leaving them defenseless when Cruz replaces Ruth Bader Ginsburg after the 2018 election, altering the balance of the Court, BUT I've been wrong on multiple occasions.

Love the last part of your prediction.

[Emjay]

Ted has stated several times that he's not at all interested in sitting on the bench.  As for Chucky and cronies of course they are going to oppose Gorsuch.  They are angry that Garland wasn't even voted on and feel that Scalia's replacement seat is being stolen as they know that in all likelihood Grosuch will be confirmed. I for one still believe that there is a possibility that Scalia didn't die of natural causes and it sure seems that things have backfired.

I believe you misunderstood Corbe.