Palin: Correct about the VP's Role in the Senate

Lots of different blogs are posting stories about the political left's newest attack on Sarah Palin, so I won't link any in particular. Suffice it to say that the gist of all the stories is that the left is outraged that Palin told a 3rd Grader that the role of the Vice President is to be "in charge of the senate".

Here's the CNN story that started the left's latest tantrum: "Palin takes heat for saying VP in charge of the Senate."

This manufactured outrage is just an extension of the "Palin doesn't know what a VP does" meme that started a few weeks ago when an old CNBC interview ran with a clip of the Governor demurring on her prospects of being selected as McCain's running mate because (paraphrasing) "someone would have to tell me what VP's do" (the context making it obvious to most fair observers that she was trying to joke about the VP's relative lack of portfolio vs. that of a Governor).

But Palin is actually right: The Constitution empowers the Vice President to Preside over the Senate. The majority party cannot prevent him/her from doing so.

And this matters. Why?

Because whoever sits in that chair has actual parliamentary power in a couple of areas.

For example, say you are watching C-Span and you hear two Senators shouting at the chair for the privilege of speaking, or to ask a procedural question. The only person who is recognized to legitimately take the floor, is, by Senate rules, the person who the Presiding Officer hears and acknowledges first.

If Palin were in that chair, she could make the call as to who is recognized to speak or to ask a parliamentary question. By using this ability, Palin could, in fact, structure the order of debate or to render a procedural inquiry moot.

In fact, procedurally the President of the Senate (or their designee) makes all the calls. The President of the Senate can be overturned by a vote of the Senate, but, absent that vote, the ruling of the Chair governs the action on the floor. It is not far fetched to say that on a controversial bill, a President of the Senate who wished to delay proceedings could in fact force repeated votes to overturn his or her rulings.

Let me share a real world example from my memory with you:

In 2000, when Bill Clinton was President, he appointed a really liberal judge named Richard Paez to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The vote was expected to be close (it ended up being 59-39) and Al Gore showed up to preside over the Senate.

Why? Because Al Gore was campaigning for President, and Paez was a vote in which Hispanic activist groups (La Raza in particular) had been particularly interested in happening. The GOP had bottled Paez' nomination up under Orrin Hatch's judiciary chairmanship for over 4 years due to Paez' record of activism. But with the Jeffords flip, the nomination received new life in the waning days of the Clinton term. I think, but am not certain, that Paez was particularly politically important because he was a "first": i.e. the "first Hispanic" to be appointed to the 9th Circuit.

So Gore shows up, But there was a hitch. Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions had discovered that Richard Paez just so happened to be the same judge who was presiding over some of the Gore-illegal campaign contributions cases in California. To many, including Sessions who made the case on the Senate floor, it appeared that Paez was being rewarded with a judicial nomination for his "good work" in protecting Gore. Paez only received his nomination to the 9th Circuit, after the Gore cases had been sent to him. (An interesting fact: Paez wasn't assigned the Gore cases randomly as is the custom; he was specifically tasked with them). It looked like a clear conflict of interest (would a judge interested in advancing his career undermine the man who had appointed him and the man who could, if he were elected, consider advancing him to the Supreme Court?).

Anyway, I can remember watching Sessions do a ballsy thing. With Gore sitting in the chair, Sessions pointed out that their was a Standing Rule of the Senate that prevented the Presiding officer from voting on any issue in which they have a personal or financial conflict of interest. Sessions essentially tried to disqualify Gore from presiding over the vote by arguing that Gore shouldn't be voting on promoting a Judge who was handling a criminal case implicating Gore.

Gore was forced to rule in favor of himself in order to resolve the dispute.

(See Update below for strike through explanation)

Which, sorta ruined the moment, if you know what I mean.

But Sessions wasn't done. He rose again and attempted to make another procedural point. But Tom Daschle, realizing what was happening, and Pat Leahy, started shouting Sessions down. Gore ignored Sessions' request and recognized Daschle. Sessions never got to offer his follow up argument. Why?

Because he lost the floor and the President of the Senate (Gore) was not going to give it back.

Who knows if Sessions had a good point or another reason to disqualify Gore from Presiding under Senate rules? I don't. Why? Because Gore immediately called for the vote after the Democratic majority requested it.

That's power.

Another example of being "in charge" of the Senate concerns the votes themselves. The President of the Senate can decide when to cut off the vote.

Suppose that the GOP is filibustering a health care nationalization bill. And the Dems have 59 votes but one or two members of their own caucus has voted with the Republicans.

The President of the Senate can call the ending of the vote right at the 15 minute mark. And the Dems couldn't do a damn thing about it (except try for a revote later). The President of the Senate could bring the gavel down and prevent some of the last minute bribing/deal-making/bartering that goes on to try to change the outcome of a vote. And once that Senator is on record voting one way, it makes it harder for them to flip down the road.

That's power too.

So when you hear these lefties bitch and moan, know well that there is a reason for their petulance. The President of the Senate could very well slow down the advancement of their agenda by just showing up for every day and making their lives miserable.

Which sounds more fun than going to some head of state funeral in Whogivesacrapistan. Doesn't it?

UPDATE: I screwed up. I thought that the Jeffords flip and the Paez vote occurred around the same time. Jeffords actually flipped the following year.

So that was wrong, and has been taken out. I guess you'll have to ask Hatch why he let him out, because now I don't remember the reasons for it at all.

posted by Jack M. at 07:22 PM

| Access Comments