Republicans May Hasten Showdown on Judicial-Nomination Filibusters

ASHINGTON, April 12 - As the fight over the federal judiciary spread across Capitol Hill, Senate Republicans said Tuesday that they might quicken their push to prevent Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees.

Senior lawmakers and party officials said that while Republican leaders had been expected to put off any confrontation over Senate rules until next month at the earliest, they might now force a confrontation within the next two weeks.

"It's possible," though "that does not mean it will happen," said Bob Stevenson, a spokesman for the majority leader, Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee.

Mr. Frist is under increasing pressure from some conservative Republicans to move ahead with a floor fight to change the rules so that filibusters, which require 60 votes to be cut off, could not be mounted against judicial nominations. It is unclear whether he has the votes to adopt the change, however, even by a bare majority.

Among those pushing for the change is Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, No. 3 in the Republican leadership.

"I am concerned that a partisan minority of Democrats are threatening to shut down the Senate if Republicans act to restore Senate tradition for simple majority votes" on nominations to the bench, Mr. Santorum said. "Their rhetoric is out of control and counterproductive."

Democrats responded by saying it was Republicans, with their efforts to curb the filibuster and with their escalating attacks on the judiciary, who were going too far.

"The Republican abuse of power," Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York said, "has been pushed by extremists who want to punish an independent judiciary and simultaneously obliterate checks and balances, effectively making the U.S. Senate a rubber stamp for judicial nominees."

Democrats circulated an interview in which Bob Dole, a former Senate majority leader, told National Public Radio that his fellow Republicans ought to be "very careful."

"You want to think down the road," Mr. Dole said. "The Senate's going to change. It's not always going to be Republican."

In the House, where Republicans have been simmering over federal courts' refusal to intercede in the Terri Schiavo case, one member directly confronted Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on Tuesday about the Supreme Court's practice of acknowledging foreign legal developments, an approach that has drawn the ire of conservatives.

At a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing on the court's spending request, Representative Todd Tiahrt, Republican of Kansas, veered from the budget issues to press Justice Kennedy.

"Lately we've had rulings that seem to go beyond the rule of law" and that reflect "outside influence," the congressman told the justice. He pointed to a Supreme Court decision last month barring the execution of those who were juveniles when they committed their crimes. That decision, which was written by Justice Kennedy and which cited international treaties and practices abroad, appeared to reflect "pressure put on by the United Nations and other agencies," Mr. Tiahrt said.

Mr. Tiarht said the court was "not interpreting the Constitution and laws that govern America anymore," and added that his views were shared by people "across the United States."

Justice Kennedy, appearing unruffled, replied mildly that disagreements over the meaning of the Constitution were "a very important part of democratic dialogue." He added, "This give and take is very healthy."

As the author of the decision on executions in juvenile crime, as well as a decision two years ago that invalidated criminal sodomy laws, Justice Kennedy has been a target of sustained attack, with some conservatives calling for his impeachment. But he and the court were defended Tuesday by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Representative Steven R. Rothman, Democrat of New Jersey, said he was surprised to see Republicans criticizing the court when seven of its nine members were nominated by Republican presidents. (Justice Kennedy himself was nominated by Ronald Reagan.) And criticism of Justice Kennedy was belittled by the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter, Republican of Pennsylvania.

"I read about people wanting to impeach Justice Kennedy for decisions that he has handed down," Mr. Specter told reporters. "You'll pardon me for mentioning it, but the only reason I mention it is because it's not worth mentioning."

Both Mr. Specter and Mr. Frist said the tone of the Senate fight over judicial nominations and the intense lobbying by outside groups interested in the issue were complicating their efforts to strike a compromise with Democrats and avoid a showdown.

"We need to lower the rhetoric," Mr. Frist said. "For the life of me, I can't understand how we benefit moving America forward and we have the other side of the aisle talking about shutting down government."

But the majority leader also said Republicans were going to step up their own efforts, in the belief that opponents of the rules change were winning the public relations war.

"I do feel that we need to do a better job at this juncture in getting information out," he said. "While I'm sitting here trying to work across the aisle, our voice is being lost."

Or democrat. And if it does, we better have stacked the courts with good judges, because the democrats will kill the filibuster whether or not we do it now, and they will fill every vacancy with ideological appointees.

We know this because that is their message -- judicial appointments to the democrats are now a political exercise, and the party that was willing to filibuster judges for the first time in the history of the senate won't stop for a minute to break the filibuster with a simple majority vote.

And the MSM will go along, just as the MSM ignores that the same democrats filibustering today are on record in the last decade decrying the use of filibusters for nominees. Their hypocrisy will always be ignored.

I sent a letter to John Warner. He is concerned about the nature of the Senate, and I pointed out that the democratic "fellow senators" he was trying to work for were calling him an extremist who didn't care for america.

This is the message of the democratic senators: Every republican senator is willing to vote for extreme right-wing ideologue judges who will ruin this country, and they do it willingly because they want to force their agenda on the american people, to the ruination of our country.

We know this because that is their message -- judicial appointments to the democrats are now a political exercise, and the party that was willing to filibuster judges for the first time in the history of the senate won't stop for a minute to break the filibuster with a simple majority vote.

Hugh Hewitt
http://www.hughhewitt.com/

(Click on link for more)

Memo to Senator Warner: The Left wants to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. Is that serious enough for you?

With both Nan Aron and Ralph Neas on the record as urging the Senate Democrats to use the filibuster to defeat Supreme Court nominees they don't like --Aron and Neas specifically named Judges Luttig, McConnell, and Roberts-- the stakes are dramatically raised in the coming showdown over the move to end the filibuster.

Thus the Wall Street Journal's article this morning (subscription required) is alarming as it identifies a seventh Republican senator who is wobbly: New Hampshire's John Sununu. Sununu joins Senators Chafee, Collins, Hagel, McCain, Snow and Warner as in the category of "undecided." Senator Warner offered this comment:

"'I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception,'" said Virginia Sen. John Warner, a 27-year veteran who has been researching previous political showdowns over court appointments including President Franklin D. Roosevelt's attempt to stack the Supreme Court. Mr. Warner says he hasn't made up his mind on the issue, but said that he isn't 'persuaded that the seriousness of the problem merits such an extraordinary solution.'"

Perhaps someone could point out to Senator Warner that the left intends to broaden the filibuster's abuse to cover ideological opposition to Supreme Court nominees, thus rewriting the "advice and consent" provision of the Constitution to include a 60% provision. Is a sleeper amendment to the Constitution serious enough for the the Senator?

The Journal's reporting is also extraordinarily bad on this topic. Consider this paragraph:

"Both sides share blame for the escalating tensions. President Bush has largely ignored the tradition of consulting with home-state senators before settling on judicial nominees. Democrats, prodded by their activist wing, have become more aggressive in challenging appellate-court nominees -- although they haven't blocked most of Mr. Bush's judicial nominations. More than 200 of Mr. Bush's judicial nominees have been appointed; 10 have been contested. And Republicans who accuse their adversaries of unprecedented behavior tiptoe past their own history of using their majority status to defeat many of President Clinton's judicial nominations at the committee level."

Memo to WSJ: There is no "tradition" of consulting home-state senators of the opposite party, even though dopes like Joe Biden have recovered memories of such a process in the Reagan years. (Ask Ed Meese or Fred Fielding if Ronald Reagan sought approval for his circuit court appointees from Democrats, or any Republican senator if Clinton sought approval from Republicans.) Also note that the Journal fails to mention that in the 217 year history of the Senate there was never a filibuster of a circuit court nominee prior to 2003, and that the 200+ approvals is a red-herring talking point, as Bush has only had 66 or so appellate court vacancies to fill, and his approval rate there is close to 50%, whereas Bill Clinton got 100% of his first term nominees approved, though some of those approvals came early in his second term. And yes, the Republicans have used their majority status to defeat Democratic nominees in committee in the past, as Democrats did as well, as recently as 2001-2002. This isn't about majority rule in the Senate. It is about abuse of cloture to change the constitutional process away from majority rule. Try using these charts for your next piece, and consult ConfirmThem before recycling Democratic talking points.

LegalFiction has some interesting takes from the left on the debate, but none of them confront the unprecedented nature of the abuse of cloture by a minority. That's because there is no defense other than a results-oriented one. "But again," Legal Fiction writes, I'm anti-filibuster across the board. If Democrats don't want Ayatollah bin Dobson picking their judiciary, they should start winning elections." (Of course, they won't start winning elections so long as they and their advisers refer to James Dobson as "Ayatollah bin Dobson" even in passing and even in jest.).

The political context is stark. If the GOP loses this battle, a great deal of justified bitterness will infect its base with dire consequences for 2006 and beyond.

While Senator Kyl has cautioned against assuming the lists of wobbly senators are accurate, Nan Aron cited six of the seven names above as her targets for turning against the GOP, so I think they and Senator Sununu should hear from Republicans as to their strength of feeling on the issue. Deserting the party on this vote seems to me to be a career-ender in terms of national ticket ambitions, and possibly in the case of Senators Chafee and Sununu, re-election in trending-blue states. Indeed, the entire NRSC apparatus has to fear a collapse in small donor support if the filibuster is not broken.

The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. E-mails for all senators are available here.

Later today I will post the transcript of the Ralph Neas interview here, and then the Nan Aron interview in the same place as soon as it is available. They are both full of rhetorical-sleight-of-hand of the sort that may confuse some listeners, but political reporters ought to know better.

The transcript of my interview with Ralph Neas from April 1 is available here and yesterday's interview with Nan Aron is here.

I heard him (basically) say on his show tonight that he would NOT give his support to any Republican who voted against changing the rules. I don't know if you've ever heard his show but Hugh is a broken glass Republican (crawl across broken glass to vote for a Republican) If we combin this with what Rush said today the Senate GOP better wake up and smell the coffee.
If I may quote a line from the old Bill Cosby show "I brought you into this world and I can take you out."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.