Alexander votes for cloture on another anti-gun Obama Federal Judge

[Worriedman]

Lame-r and 10 other "Republicans" vote to end debate and allow a floor vote on John McConnell's appointment, (a virulent anti-gunner) to the Federal Bench.

Anti-gun Nominee Narrowly Passes in Senate - Gun Owners Of America

Alexander and the Republicans did not support the man in the floor vote, thereby getting to say they did not "vote" for him, but it takes 60 to bring about an end to debate and allow the vote, one on the floor a simple majority is all it takes to win. Without the 11 Republicans, the nominee would not have made it to a vote as the count for cloture was 63.

[leroy]

This is exactly why we need to get rid of alexander. He is a typical, scheming polititian playing both sides of the fence. He, no doubt, traded influence somewhere unknown to us to allow this travesty to happen. Everything is a deal to the "political class".

leroy

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Yep. He needed to go last time. He's past due.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Can he take Corker with him, please?

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Second that.

[leroy]

Can he take Corker with him, please?

Fully agreed.

leroy

[Glenn]

Alexander is a steaming pile of

Glenn

[kieefer]

Tell him what you think.

E-mail Me - Contact - U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander

[mcurrier]

Yep. He needed to go last time. He's past due.

+1,000,000

Yep. He needed to go last time. He's past due.

+1,000,000

[Glenn]

Tell him what you think.

E-mail Me - Contact - U.S. Senator Lamar Alexander

I've told him several times

Glenn

[Guest mikedwood]

I've told him several times

Glenn

I think his emails just go directly to his spam folder, or no one checks that account.

[leroy]

All:____________

I get the weekly note on voting. Alexander pulled a Kerry on this one. He voted for cloture; then voted against confirmation on the floor vote so he could say he voted "against confirmation". He obviously knew that the "for confirmation" floor vote would pass. It did with 50 "ayes". More dirty "quid pro quo" politics. Remember, politics can be a dirty business. Alexander is plenty dirty.

watchin leroy

Edited May 12, 2011 by leroy

[Guest TnValleyBulletman]

Concerning Lamar I can't think of anything better to say than the words spoken by Cromwell long ago:

You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!

[Oh Shoot]

The only thing as bad as a TN Democrat is the type of TN Republican we've been growing for much too long now.

- OS

[leroy]

....The only thing as bad as a TN Democrat is the type of TN Republican we've been growing for much too long now. ...

- OS

I fully agree!!

keep up the good work.

leroy

[RobertNashville]

I can't stand Alexander but let's be clear here...it's not, in my opinion, the job of Congress to hold up floor votes on nominees and if "we" do it to them then why should expect them to not do it to "us" when we have a President we support but he can't get his nominees to the floor for a vote?

[leroy]

Robert:______________

Take a look at this: George W. Bush judicial appointment controversies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here: http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2011/0104_advice_consent_binder.aspx

Everything boils down to politics. Congress does, in fact, regularly hold up judicial appointments and they should.

leroy

Edited May 14, 2011 by leroy
added brookings link.

[Worriedman]

I can't stand Alexander but let's be clear here...it's not, in my opinion, the job of Congress to hold up floor votes on nominees and if "we" do it to them then why should expect them to not do it to "us" when we have a President we support but he can't get his nominees to the floor for a vote?

That tactic is a ploy built into the system, the Democrats make use of it all the time when they need to as a support of their agenda, but our Republican Senator will not.

I personally am for any legal method to keep anti-gun and liberty hating judges off the bench.

[Guest No Ammo]

Bob Corker on Gun Control

Bob Corker on Gun Control

Republican challenger

Protect the Second Amendment’s guarantee

As Senator, I will protect the Second Amendment’s guarantee of our right to bear arms and reject attempts to limit the freedom of law-abiding gun owners. The best way to stop crime is to capture and imprison criminals-not to impose new burdens on law-abiding citizens. Source: Campaign website, Petition to Cap All Federal Spending :: Bob Corker for U.S. Senate, “Issues†Jan 20, 2006

Voted YES on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.

Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: "Allowing Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport Firearms on Passenger Trains.--None of amounts made available in the reserve fund authorized under this section may be used to provide financial assistance for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) unless Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.

Proponent's argument to vote Yes:Sen. ROGER WICKER (R, MS). This amendment aims to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to check safely a firearm.

Opponent's argument to vote No:Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D, NJ): I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn't have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places. This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305((2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Reference: Wicker Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.798 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S145 on Apr 2, 2009

Voted YES on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.

Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State's International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States. Proponents support voting YES because:

Sen. VITTER: This is a straight funding limitation amendment. Many folks who haven't followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens' guns or taxes US citizens' guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.

No opponents spoke against the bill.

Reference: Vitter Amendment to State Dept. Appropriations Bill; Bill S.Amdt. 2774 to H.R. 2764 ; vote number 2007-321 on Sep 6, 2007

Ban gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC.

Corker co-sponsored banning gun registration & trigger lock law in Washington DC

• Nothing in any provision of law shall authorize the Mayor, or any governmental authority of the District of Columbia, to prohibit possessing firearms by a person who is allowed to possess firearms under federal law.
  
• Denies the District any authority to enact laws or regulations that discourage or eliminate the private ownership or use of firearms.
  
• Repeals the ban on semiautomatic weapons.
  
• Repeals the District's registration requirement for possession of firearms.
  
• Repeals the trigger lock law.
  
• Maintains the current ban on the possession and control of a sawed-off shotgun, machine gun, or short-barreled rifle.
  
• Eliminates criminal penalties for possessing an unregistered firearm.
  
• Specifies exceptions to the prohibition against carrying concealed weapons in the District. Source: D.C. Personal Protection Act (H.R.1399/S.1001) 2007-S1001 on Mar 27, 2007
  

[RobertNashville]

That tactic is a ploy built into the system, the Democrats make use of it all the time when they need to as a support of their agenda, but our Republican Senator will not.

I personally am for any legal method to keep anti-gun and liberty hating judges off the bench.

Legal? By what standard?

I haven't read anything in the Constitution that allows a relative handful of senators to keep the entire senate from being able to vote...ans just because the "Democrats do it" is not a justification for anyone else to do so.

[RobertNashville]

..

Corker is rotten...slightly less rotten than Alexander but still too rotten to stomach....both of these RHINOs need to go.

[leroy]

....Corker is rotten...slightly less rotten than Alexander but still too rotten to stomach....both of these RHINOs need to go. ...

Im like you. I can stand Corker a bit better. Alaxander is rotten to the core; typical polititian. Tennessee republicans missed a great chance to send a real republican to the senate when they rejected Ed Bryant. We're paying the price for that mistake now.

leroy

[Armed Aviator]

Corker is rotten...slightly less rotten than Alexander but still too rotten to stomach....both of these RHINOs need to go.

If we are going to replace Corker, We need a Primary Candidate now! WHo's going to step up that can beat Corker in the primary?

[Worriedman]

Legal? By what standard?

I haven't read anything in the Constitution that allows a relative handful of senators to keep the entire senate from being able to vote...ans just because the "Democrats do it" is not a justification for anyone else to do so.

It takes 60 votes for cloture, (cutting off debate on a nominee, a filibuster if you will), if a filibuster is not legal, why is it a Senate rule? The filibuster is a time honored tradition in the Senate, what Alexander and the other Liberal Republicans did was sell us out. Without their help, the nominee would not have made it to a floor vote, and there is nothing illegal about that action to block such a vote. (Shades of Mr. Smith goes to Washington)

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster_Cloture.htm

Edited May 17, 2011 by Worriedman

[RobertNashville]

It takes 60 votes for cloture, (cutting off debate on a nominee, a filibuster if you will), if a filibuster is not legal, why is it a Senate rule? The filibuster is a time honored tradition in the Senate, what Alexander and the other Liberal Republicans did was sell us out. Without their help, the nominee would not have made it to a floor vote, and there is nothing illegal about that action to block such a vote. (Shades of Mr. Smith goes to Washington)

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & Procedures > Filibuster and Cloture

Thanks but I know how to use Google.

The concept of a cloture vote was an invention of Woodrow Wilson (not a great claim to fame for the process in my opinion). I understand that cloture ends a filibuster but I believe that if you check, you won't find the filibuster being used to stop Presidential appointments until fairly recent times; the filibuster was used to stop debate on bills, not appointments and in any case, what passes for a filibuster today and what a real filibuster is are two different things.

Just because a socialist President and a bunch of pansy-assed Senators changed the rules doesn't make it right or appropriate and there is nothing honorable or worthy of support in keeping a nominee from being voted on regardless of "who" nominated him/her...it's wrong when the Democrats do it and it's wrong when the Republicans do it.

Edited May 17, 2011 by RobertNashville