Quantcast
Home » News
Home » News

Same as voting 'No'

Published May 25, 2011 12:10 am
This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2011, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.

Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch has repeatedly insisted, as he did in 2003, that "Every judicial nominee who reaches the Senate floor deserves an up or down vote. That's fair and what the Constitution requires."

On May 19, however, Hatch's vote on a filibuster against Goodwin Liu's long-delayed judicial nomination helped deny an up or down vote that Hatch insists "the Constitution requires."

Matt Canham reported that Hatch "was the only senator to vote 'present' on Thursday. He refuses to vote to block a nomination from going forward but didn't want his vote misconstrued as supporting Liu's nomination." ("Lee cites Alito criticism in voting against judicial nomination," Tribune, May 20)



But as columnist Jamie Dupree explained: "There's only one problem with that argument — voting 'Present' on a cloture motion is the same as voting 'No.' You need 60 'Yes' votes to break a filibuster — and it doesn't matter how many senators vote 'Present' or 'No.''"

Glenn Sugameli

Washington, D.C.

 

 

 

USER COMMENTS
Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
comments powered by Disqus