Confirmation Hearing: Inks.LWC (Secretary of Forum Affairs)

[Ebowed]

This hearing is called to order.

Senators are encouraged to debate the qualities of the nominee and ask him questions.

[Meeker]

I must give this one a loving but firm "No". His tenure during this past election, to put it lightly, worries me.

If Inks can give a thorough explanantion of everything that happened and prove that he was not at fault, I may reconsider. Until then I cannot support his nomination.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I think Inks did not handle the situation the way some SoFA did, but a lot of the problem was lack of precendent.  A candidate withdrew in the middle of an election, Inks had to make a decision.  He did not waver, he was steadfast, and he accepted thed decision of the court.  As far as the time, while he did violate some precendent, what he did was not against the law, a decision President Moderate backed up.  The job of SoFA is not an easy one, it takes a lot of work and I know Inks will be dedicated to the job.  If Duke appoints me in time to vote on this manner, I will be willing to vote for this qualified nominee.

[Torie]

I will copy and past the letter to the editor of the examiner which I just published. On matters of  appointment by the executive, to the executive branch, I give great deference to the executive, and don't wish to second guess him absent compelling cause. But we may have compelling cause here. We shall see.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Torie]

This hearing is called to order.

Senators are encouraged to debate the qualities of the nominee and ask him questions.

What is the procedure on this?  How long is the period of time to debate? If a vote is called, then what is the period of time within which to vote?  How does one effect a filibuster if one wishes to do so?  I am new to this job, and need some pointers. Thank you.

[Peter]

See Article VI of the OSPR

[Torie]

See Article VI of the OSPR

Thank you. Homework! Oh goodie!

[Sam Spade]

See Article VI of the OSPR

Thank you. Homework! Oh goodie!

With nominations (as opposed to the legislative process), I made the process rather rigid. 

There is 72 hours of debate on the nominee, which can be extend 48 hours (I think), on motion of a Senator.  If there is no debate in the thread for 24 hours, the PPT/VP can bring the nomination session to a close and call a vote.

Note that debate is not defined (and it appears over and over again in the legislative realm too) - over the history and usage of the OSPR, it has customarily meant pretty much any posting by a Senator that is in some way related to the nomination or legislation at hand.

Unlike legislation, however, there is no opportunity to filibuster a nomination - the nominee always gets a straight up-or-down vote.  There were policy reasons behind this choice - I was always concerned about nominations becoming *personal* and the stoppage of government.  Besides, prior to the OSPR, certain nominations had been held up before by Senators.

[Torie]

Will my homework reveal how to invoke a filibuster, where legal? 

[DownWithTheLeft]

Will my homework reveal how to invoke a filibuster, where legal? 

See the thread on "Confirmation of Mike Naso for VP", that is the only filibuster I can remember.

[Sam Spade]

Will my homework reveal how to invoke a filibuster, where legal? 

See the thread on "Confirmation of Mike Naso for VP", that is the only filibuster I can remember.

You can't filibuster nominees.  If it was done there, it might have been when Ebowed used a little loophole back then to cause problems that has since been fixed.  There have been plenty of filibusters otherwise.

In order to filibuster legislation, you need three other Senators (more than 1/3rd).  All legislation gets, at minimum 72 hours of debating time.  After the 72 hours, the 24-hour *no debate* rule is in effect.  A Senator can call for cloture on the legislation during this time, but needs 2/3rds support.  So the trick is to keep posting once every 24 hours. 

The key manuever trick is to stall for 14 days.  After 14 days, *all* legislation must pass cloture in order to reach a vote.

[Torie]

Splendid!  Thanks.

[Robespierre's Jaw]

Although I stated earlier that I believe that President Moderate's selection of Inks as Secretary of Forum Affairs was an "excellent selection", I believe that I'll have to retract the statements I made less than 24 hours ago. We cannot have a Secretary of Forum Affairs that closes the Booth's at the wrong time and produces illegitimate results.

Although I believe that Inks can overcome his past inabilities, with the prime and only example being the last Presidential Election, I believe he can become an excellent selection for the position. However I will not give vote for him as Secretary of Forum Affairs because I feel sorrow for Mr. Inks. He will have to do some explaining, Brady style to get my vote.

[Colin]

I have already put forward my thoughts on this nomination elsewhere. I think the litany of errors promulgated by Inks during his tenure as Deputy SoFA speaks for itself and has already been stated by my other colleagues in this chamber. I am firmly opposed to this nomination.

[CultureKing]

I would definately need a good amount of convincing to accept and support this nomination, especially in light of mistakes made during the last election.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I would like to remind everyone just how much effort it takes to do this job and for the people who do not support Inks, who do you think Mr. Moderate should nominate?

[Ebowed]

Putting that aside, in all candor, I was a bit unhappy myself with the nominee's deportment during the recent litigation involving himself, as he became a bit too defensive, and at one point characterizing our Supreme Court nominee as a "perjurer," or something along those lines. I expect a retraction of that, and an apology, before I can consider giving him my vote.

How is that revelant?  He wasn't a Supreme Court nominee at the time of the lawsuit.

[Torie]

He said it. It was wrong. It doesn't matter what the status was of the subject of his accusation, at least it doesn't to me.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He said it. It was wrong. It doesn't matter what the status was of the subject of his accusation, at least it doesn't to me.

He made false statements in the Court.  If we are to consider those statements as being under oath, then it was perjury.  If he wasn't under oath, then he made  careless lie.

Either way, I will not retract my statements.  If that costs me the confirmation vote, so be it.

As to my many mistakes: The only law I broke was not counting the votes for Sam Spade, which I don't think I should be faulted for, since it was a clearly complicated case with no precedent.

My opening of the voting booth was unorthodox, but very legal, and it is the way that I have always opened voting booths, and nobody in the Mideast has complained.  I clearly stated the opening and closing times of the booths, it's not like I secretly opened it at a different time than normal.

[DownWithTheLeft]

One more point (gosh I guess I've made too many already )

Unless you appoint a former SoFA, there is going to be a learning curve, getting used to the job and its responsibilities.  I think its much harder than it looks.  The Deputy SoFA has already had this learning curve, he's had the nastiest curveball thrown at him and he handled himself well under the circumstances.  Anything from here on out will probably be a piece of cake. 

[Torie]

Thank you for your statement Inks. To me, the term "lie" means making a false statement with intent to deceive. Is that the meaning that you intended to convey, when you used the term?  If so, does that remain your opinion? 

[DownWithTheLeft]

Now that I am a senator, I would like to make it official:

I will be voting to confirm the nominee, he is not only qualified, but he proved he can handle himself with his decisions are quesitoned.  It is unfair that we judge Inks because he got caught up in the most unusual of circumstances, if there weren't the occasional dispute, we would not have courts.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Thank you for your statement Inks. To me, the term "lie" means making a false statement with intent to deceive. Is that the meaning that you intended to convey, when you used the term?  If so, does that remain your opinion? 

I believe that he made that statement in order to better assist his case.  Whether or not that was simply a mistake on his behalf (and a very big and crucial mistake), or intentional, it was a lie.  The legal definition of "lie" has nothing to do with intent.  It was one of his (initial) main points, and would've been crucial to the case if true.

What I'd like to know is why everybody in this Senate is ridiculing me but not regional administrators who have violated election law (other than in the Southeast, where the executive branch has been essentially AWOL at times).

Senator Meeker, why have you not denounced Governor Sensei for opening the Mideast's ballot late, yet you criticize me for opening the ballot in an unorthodox, yet legal way?  Or have you criticized me for not counting Sam's votes?  In which case, I will tell you that I have no defense for myself.  I had no precedent to go on, and was merely interpreting the law to the best of my ability.  If you think somebody would've handled that situation better, then petition the President to nominate them, but otherwise, you have too high of expectations for the person who will fill the office of SoFA.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Even if you won't vote for me, could I at least have the honor of you answering my questions?

[Ebowed]

The vote is on confirmation.