and a step-back-from-the-brink suggestion from david broder: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/22/AR2005042201322.html -- A Judicious Compromise Democrats Should Take the First Step to End the Filibuster Fracas By David S. Broder Sunday, April 24, 2005 It is not too late to avoid a Senate-splitting rules fight over President Bush's embattled judicial nominees and achieve something positive for both the public and the cause of good government, if only Democrats and Republicans can free themselves for a moment from the death grip of the opposing outside interest groups. Here is what should happen: The Democratic Senate leadership should agree voluntarily to set aside the continued threat of filibustering the seven Bush appointees to the federal appeals courts who were blocked in the last Congress and whose names have been resubmitted. In return, they should get a renewed promise from the president that he will not bypass the Senate by offering any more recess appointments to the bench and a pledge from Republican Senate leaders to consider each such nominee individually, carefully and with a guarantee of extensive debate in coming months. Why should the Democrats be the first to step back from the abyss of the "nuclear option," the possible rules change that would eliminate all judicial nomination filibusters and thereby make confirmation possible with 51 -- not 60 -- votes? The principled answer is that elections matter. Voters placed Republicans in control of the White House and the Senate, and while the opposition still has a constitutional role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more than talking important matters to death. But there are also practical reasons for the Democrats to take this path. Their tactical position is weak. The Judiciary Committee cleared two more nominees last week. The Republicans -- with Vice President Cheney in the chair -- could well muster the 51 votes needed to change Senate rules and abolish judicial filibusters. If that were to happen, Democrats have said they would use every rule and procedure available to them to bring the work of the Senate to a halt. Building such a roadblock to consideration of such important legislation as energy, Social Security, welfare reform and the routine financing of government would bring down deserved public condemnation, and the mighty megaphone of the White House would ensure that Democrats took the brunt of the blame. Democrats need to remember what happened to Newt Gingrich when he shut down the government for a few days in 1995 in a budget dispute with President Bill Clinton. It was not Clinton who lost public support. In addition, if the judicial filibuster were ended by a vote of the Senate, it would vanish entirely. By yielding the right to filibuster these specific court appointees, the Democrats could deny the Republicans any immediate pretext for changing the rules -- and preserve the possibility of a filibuster should Bush later submit someone they find seriously objectionable for a vacancy on the Supreme Court. The leverage they relinquish today might be much more important to them tomorrow. But there are also positive goals that Democrats and Republicans can achieve by this kind of agreement. These appeals court judgeships -- one step below the Supreme Court -- are important, but today they are almost invisible. By securing agreement that the Senate would hold serious, sustained debates on each one, perhaps giving one week of each month to each judicial confirmation debate until the backlog is cleared, the Democrats could bring much more visibility and accountability to the confirmation process. Instead of sending a message that they do not trust their Republican colleagues' judgment -- and therefore feel justified in preventing a vote -- the Democrats would be saying to their colleagues and the country: We trust you to take your "advise and consent" duties seriously. And they should feel such trust. The balance of power in the Senate is not in a right-wing cabal; it is in the moderate center. You can see that in the careful way the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is weighing the nomination of John Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations. You saw it also in Senate debate on the budget resolution. Except for Clarence Thomas, who was supported by only 11 Democrats, every single Supreme Court nominee of Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton was confirmed with the support of the overwhelming majority of opposition-party senators. The outside groups on the right and left are pressuring senators for a showdown, telling them not to yield an inch. Only the senators themselves can defend their institution from the damage the "nuclear option" would cause. They have the capacity -- and the clear duty -- to do it.
Oh let the Republicans use the nuclear option and be done with it. History will tell if this is a smart move on the part of Republicans.
How hard is it to allow a vote on each judge? Why are the liberal senators taking away what the people voted for in the ballot box?
How hard was it for the Republicans not to allow votes on 60 of Clinton's judicial nominees? Just curious, T_J, do you know how many judicial nominations W has made since the beginning of his first term? And do you know how many have passed/how many are being disputed?
Actually I heard on the radio that the obstructionists in Congress have passed the lowest % of judges since Truman this time around. Plus, the Repubicans at least played by the rules when Clinton's nominees got squashed in committee. They aren't breaking 200 years of precedent like the liberals are doing now. Fortunately, the Senate's chief obstructionist, Tom Daschle, got booted out by the good voters of South Dakota. That ought to send a message to the libs that maybe -- just maybe -- their obstructionist tactics are transparent. In other news, Howard Dean is backing a socialist for Jeffords Senate seat in Vermont! A socialist! Nice. Nah, he's not extreme or anything... Typical liberals.
they didn't block them by filibuster, which is what this thread is about posted elsewhere, but the economist has an interesting chart on this point:
Suck it up and play with the system the way it is. Or change the way the system has worked for hundreds of years, and live with the consequences for both parties in the future.
The liberals already have changed the way the system has worked for hundreds of years by filibustering judicial nominees. That's the entire point of this thread.
How is this technique any worse than the Republicans bottling up many of Clinton's nominees in committee, never letting them even reach a vote? And the Republicans successfully used a filibuster to block Abe Fortas, LBJ's nominee for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in 1968.
I disagree with the wording of the poll. Its not a "logical extension" it IS part of the advice and consent power. The Constitution leaves it to the Senate to devise its own rules and since the filibuster is part of the Senate rules it is part of the advice and consent power otherwise it couldn't have been used in the first place.
wrong. fortas was threatened w/ a bi-partisan filibuster, and LBJ w/ drew the nomination. but i'm curious, are you suggesting democrats are just engaing in payback fro fortas 37 years later?
and yet, the framers made very clear when they wanted something decided by a "super-majority". confirmation of judges wasn't one of those issues.
You're arguing speculation against reality. If the filibuster couldn't be applied to judges it never would've been applied. Anyway the filibuster in general wasn't strictly enumerated in the Constitution so under your view their shouldn't be filibusters. For that matter neither were committees so then the Republican Congress shouldn't have been able to block Clinton appointments in committees. The Constitution leaves it up to the Senate to decide its rules. The filibuster is a Senate rule and consistent with the idea of the separation of powers outlined by the Constitution.
I can't blame filibustering on GWB's appointees. If they're half as extreme as he is---and why wouldn't they be?---and if they got appointed, might as well tear up the Constitution for toilet paper. Because that's what it's becoming anyway.
Rather than blaming Dems all the time when Repubs don't get their way, the Rupubs could try something novel. They could ask Dems ahead of time and work together rather than shoving everything down the Dems throat. As the controlling party, Repubs have an obligation to reach out in the spirit of cooperation. Oh I'm sorry, that isn't how it works. It's better just to continue Us vs. Them in-fighting. Naw, rather than trying to work together, it's just easier to remove any shreds of constitutionally protected Checks-and-Balances so the controlling party can become even stronger. I must have more power. mmmmm. I love power. (while the entire electrical grid goes dark <--- Superman reference) Just work together and lets get over this crap!
No. You are wrong. Unless you don't believe the US Senate's own website. It lasted 4 days, at the end of which LBJ did withdraw his nomination. I'm not saying this is payback, I'm saying that it's ironic that a Republican would say that this is something that's never been done before, when in fact it is something that was in fact invented by Republicans (and "Dixiecrats", who by and large converted to Republicans in the South by the 70s).
It is definitely an extension of advise and consent. It's a new thread with a poll, but it is still the same arguments. A supermajority of Bush's nominiees have been allowed an up or down vote. A super minority are deemed to be too radical in their judicial philosphy, and won't even make it to a vote. It seems like a significant minority are blocking a super miniscule minority of judges. Bush didn't like it the first time, and renominated the same judges. Now some folks in the senate don't like it and want to change the rules, because they can't win by the existing rules. This group used rules to keep even more Clinton judicial nominees from ever receiving an up or down vote. But they used different rules. Why are some rules ok to use, and some rules aren't? It's all semantics. It's not as if filibusters haven't been used to block judicial nominees before. They have it was just a mixture of party members doing it, instead of one. Big-whoop-de-doo. Democrats have made at least two efforts to reach common ground through compromise, but their gop opponents have refused all efforts to reach common ground, and have not offered a seperate compromise of their own. The president tried with these guys before and couldn't get them through. Rather than moving on, he's trying his luck again. They won't make it through again, unless one party that won't work to find common ground changes the rules to fit their agenda. Someone is being obstructionist here, and their initials are GOP.
How are David McKeague and Richard Griffin too radical? They are being held up because the Michagan senators are blocking ALL appointments to the 6th circuit. It is petty payback because the Republican controlled congress didn't let some Clinton nominees out of committee. Nevermind that one purpose of the committee is to pre-screen the candidates.
