Who's the cowardly Republican helping the terrorists?

[rjung]

From Salon.com:

Using a century-old procedural tactic, an unidentified Republican senator has placed a hold on the FBI Reform Act of 2002, making it virtually impossible for the legislation to reach the full Senate for a vote.

The bill is designed to address the lack of management accountability and other chronic FBI shortcomings, and it passed the Judiciary Committee by a unanimous vote in April. But just days after the vote, a hold was placed on the bill anonymously and without explanation.

Speculation on Capitol Hill suggests it may be Republican payback for the contentious defeat of conservative Mississippi District Court Judge Charles Pickering.

(Gee, and here I thought partisan politics had no place in the war on terrorism…)

So, who wants to submit their favorite nominees? We’ve got a field of 40-something to choose from, so don’t be shy!

[Tars_Tarkas]

So we know it’s a republican from something other than rumor among Hill aides? (not that I’m defending republicans, even though i’m on their spam list!) Otherwise it just looks like speculation, and could easily be a rogue Democrat whose cousin is likely to get fired from the FBI or some other nonsense.

[Neurotik]

If it’s an anonymous Senator, how do they know it’s a Republican?

Not that I’m saying it’s not, nor that it is unlikely.

Just curious if it is known exactly who the Senator is, but that info is confidential and only the party affiliation was leaked out or something.

[SuaSponte]

Well, it’s not truly an “anonymous” Senator - the Senator requesting the “hold” must identify him/herself to the Senate Majority leader and his staff. I mean, he/she can’t simply call up and, disguising his/her voice say “I am a Senator, I swear, and I want you to put a hold on that bill.” So yeah, the staffers know who the Senator is.

But anyway, without regard to the affiliation of this particular Senator, the Senate is a travesty of democracy. Anonymous holds, filibusters, and other fine “traditions” of the Senate all act to severely damage the concept of majority representational rule.

Sua

[RedNaxela]

Possibly simple-minded question:

Given that, as Sua noted, the “hold” request has to be approved by Daschle, why would he have been willing to do this for one lone senator from the opposing party? (I’m assuming that the Majority Leader has the power to allow or disallow such a request.)

[sub]Unless, of course, he’s not all that crazy about this bill either, and just wants to use this as an excuse to derail it (with the added bonus of getting to trash the Republicans again…)[/sub]

[SuaSponte]

Rednaxala, pursuant to Senate tradition, a hold request may not be denied.

There is no law stating that a hold request must be honored, but then again, there is no law providing for a hold in the first place. This is an asinine tradition, faithfully ascribed to by both parties, for the purposes of “comity” and “collegiality” in the Senate.

Sua