A Quote by Tina Smith

I was appointed to the Senate, and it has been my job to serve in the Senate and then to earn the vote of Minnesotans. — © Tina Smith
I was appointed to the Senate, and it has been my job to serve in the Senate and then to earn the vote of Minnesotans.
The Senate was the equivalent of an aristocracy at the beginning. Senators were not even elected; they were appointed in the early days. Then that changed, and senators did become elected. But the Senate is designed to slow down out-of-control, madcap activity elsewhere in the legislative branch (i.e., in the House), and the 60-vote rule was part of that.
The majority in the Senate is prepared to restore the Senate's traditions and precedents to ensure that regardless of party, any president's judicial nominees, after full and fair debate, receive a simple up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
When it comes to Senate reform, in general, I've always been a believer in an elected Senate and would hope to achieve aspects of Senate reform.
Coming to serve in the Senate and also running for the Senate in a short time period is not for the faint of heart. But I am not fainthearted.
I have been immeasurably honored to serve the people of Maine for nearly 40 years in public office and for the past 17 years in the United States Senate. It was incredibly difficult to decide that I would not seek a fourth term in the Senate.
The Senate should consider a rule ensuring that every judicial nominee receives a vote by the Senate within 180 days of being nominated by the president.
Bob Torricelli, Democrat member of the Senate, was basically about to be thrown out of office on corruption charges, and he went to the floor of the Senate to deny everything. And we juxtaposed his denials with an attorney from someone in an action against Torricelli who was listing all of the gifts and all the bribes that Torricelli had been given and offered in exchange for policy considerations on the Senate floor. So he's on the Senate floor denying it.
The chaplain of the Senate does not pray for the Senate. He watches the Senate and prays for the country.
Obviously, you cannot do full repeal of Obamacare without a 60-vote bill in the Senate, but you can surely gut the law and give people true healthcare freedom with 51 votes in the Senate.
Moments ago, the U.S. Senate decided to do the unthinkable about gun violence - nothing at all. Over two years ago, when I was shot point-blank in the head, the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. Four months ago, 20 first-graders lost their lives in a brutal attack on their school, and the U.S. Senate chose to do nothing. It's clear to me that if members of the U.S. Senate refuse to change the laws to reduce gun violence, then we need to change the members of the U.S. Senate.
You now have six-year campaigns for the Senate - you never stop running. It's not uncommon for a member of the Senate to have a fundraising breakfast, a fundraising lunch and a fundraising dinner, and then when the Senate breaks for the week to go home, more fundraisers. And that's driven by the cost of campaigning.
I would hope that the Senate would do its job and confirm the nominee that President [Barack] Obama has sent to them. That's the way the Constitution fundamentally should operate. The president nominates, and then the Senate advises and consents, or not, but they go forward with the process.
Let there be no reservation or doubt that I believe the Senate should vote on each and every judicial appointment made by the President of the United States and that no rule or procedure should ever stop the Senate from exercising its constitutional responsibility.
When you work in the United States Senate, and you are around people of all different ideas and beliefs, you realize that what our Founding Fathers did that was so genius, is that they made the Senate the place where compromises are supposed to happen because of the makeup of the Senate.
What I find most appalling is the Senate calls it a qualified blind trust when it's not blind. Since the Senate says it's OK, the Senate has made it a political question. It's up to the voter. But there's no doubt it's a conflict of interest.
I will always support a vote. The constitution gives the president the right to appoint justices with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Senate does have the right to say no; they do not have the right to say nothing.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!