Bush's Call for Vote on Judges Adds Urgency to Filibuster Battle

The Washington Post ^ | May 10, 2005 | Jim VandeHei and Charles Babington

[Acton]

Bush's Call for Vote on Judges Adds Urgency to Filibuster Battle

President Bush yesterday called for an immediate vote on two of his most controversial judicial nominations, increasing pressure on Senate Republicans to consider a historic rule change that would make it easier for him, and future presidents, to reshape the federal bench, including the Supreme Court.

Bush issued a statement from Europe demanding an "up-or-down vote" on Priscilla R. Owen and Terrence W. Boyle for seats on appellate courts only hours before Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales held a news conference to cast the judicial dispute as one of "fairness." Despite a flurry of congressional negotiations yesterday, Senate Republicans appear increasingly likely to exercise the "nuclear option" of changing Senate rules to prevent Democrats from filibustering Bush's judicial nominees.

The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars. ****

"This is being done to . . . help a president achieve what he wants to achieve," said former representative Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), now a scholar at the Aspen Institute. "It's a total disavowal of the basic framework of the system of government. .....

The filibuster allows a minority in the Senate to block almost any legislation as long as it can muster at least 40 votes. It is considered one of the great institutional checks on the influence of the majority party and sometimes the presidency. If it is eliminated for judicial nominations, Bush will enjoy greater latitude in filling vacancies on appellate courts, which are one step below the Supreme Court.

*****

[Acton]

This is an embarrassing example of the MSM's work on reporting the news. No one even bothers to go back and check the Constitution to see if maybe, just maybe, there is an answer in the Constitution, or in the writings of the Framers. No, instead, the authors say things like, "George Bush started it..." ("The president [note lower case], who initiated the conflict ....') and finsing only scholars who declare that the filibuster includes the right to filibuster judicial nominees. It does not, and as we discovered several years ago, it does not include the right to filibuster a treaty. They don't even present the "other side" of the argument that a filibuster is different than a vote. There is no discussion of the Adam Clayton Powell case and House rules. It is just an "us versus the unreasonable Republicans."

There are lots of clever people in the world. Some, if they can do math and science, and are willing to work hard, become our doctors and scientists, or our business leaders and accountants. If they can't do math and science, but are willing to work hard, they may become our politicians, lawyers and judges. And if they are just clever enough, and don't want to do the hard work that is required to understand the law and politics, they become journalists.

[jackbill]

While serving alongside Owen in 2000, Gonzales wrote an opinion criticizing her and two other dissenting judges for "an unconscionable act of judicial activism" in seeking to restrict a minor's right to an abortion.

That's a damnable lie. In the case in question, Gonzales was in the 6-3 majority. He criticized the judges in the minority who took a particular position in their dissent. Judge Owen DID NOT TAKE THAT POSITION IN HER DISSENT. Her dissent was based on something entirely different.

Is it any wonder why people claim that the WAPO is biased when all they do is repeat DemocRAT lies?

[SoFloFreeper]

Anyone see similarities between these two?

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada (the 21st Century)

Senator Pat Geary of Nevada (the Godfather Part II)

[VRWCmember]

The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars. ****

The conflict was initiated by the obstructionist dems. In fact, you might say the conflict was initiated back in the '80s when the disgraceful treatment of Judge Bork resulted in his name becoming a verb for disgraceful smearing and lying about an honorable judge to derail his confirmation.

[1Old Pro]

Enough Already, VOTE!

[Jim Verdolini]

No Judges = No Money

cut the buggers off and they will listen.

[Tanniker Smith]

("The president [note lower case], who initiated the conflict ....')

That's actually correct standard usage. The word "president" is only capitalized when used as a title as in "President Bush" or refering to the name of the office as in "The President of the United States".

It is lowercase in the sense of "The president made a pass at two women today and shouted, 'Hot dang! It's like I was back in Hot Springs!" The lowercase 'p' doesn't demean the president. (Clinton did fine demeaning himself.)

TS

[Tanniker Smith]

"GIve my nominees a fair up-or-down vote or don't take another Congressional Recess."

TS
(now, *that* would be the nuclear option -- the Senate would go ballistic!)

[Buke]

quick question about the filibuster. i have talked with some liberal friends of mine and they claim that the republican party used this during Clinton's administration. now i am an independent who votes for who i think is right regardless of party. i figured a group of republicans would know the truth. has the republican party used the filibuster during Clinton nominations, and if so, why is it any different then the democrats doing it to Bush's?

[Prince Caspian]

My understanding is that, although liberals like to claim the Republicans did the same thing to some of Clinton's appointees, it was not. In Clinton's case, it was a matter of the appointee not being voted out of committee in the first place. It is necessary to receive a majority of judicial committee votes in order to even have the opportunity to be voted on by the full Senate. The Republicans were the majority party in the Senate and therefore had the majority number of committee members. Some of Clinton's appointees did not receive a majority of the judicial committee members' votes.

The current situation is one where the appointee has been voted out of the judicial committee and awaits a vote by the full Senate. But the full Senate vote requires cloture, or the vote of 60 Senators to cut off debate. The Democrats stall the vote by means of the threat of a fillibuster (less than 60 votes for cloture). This latter situation has never before been done to a judicial appointee. It is most definitely not the same thing as what happened to some Clinton appointees. A vote to change the Senate rules eliminating fillibusters on judicial appointment votes eliminates a fillibuster option that has never before been exercised. The understanding and agreement has always been that nominees who get voted out of committee receive an up or down vote by the full Senate -- no fillibusters. Eliminating the judicial vote fillibuster DOES NOT eliminate the fillibuster in any other legislative circumstance.

[Buke]

Thanks for the answer. I brought that up today at work and pretty much won the argument. It threw people for a loop that I was on the right of this debate. Again though, thanks.

[savedbygrace]

According to The Gregg Reference Manual, President, when referring to the office of the President of the United States, is an exception to the rule. In Section 314 of the Seventh Edition, it says:

EXCEPTION: Because of the special regard for the office of the President of the United States, this title is capitalized even when used as a general term of classification (a President, every President).

[SAWTEX]

Another good argument is that a Senate rule which the filibuster is can not override the Constitution which in Article II Section 2 paragraph 2 by not stating a super majority like it does for treaties makes it a simple majority. Why the Republicans are not going this rout after several constitutional scholars have stated this opinion is beyond me.

[Buke]

I believe that honestly there is a general fear of what will happen on both sides of this topic. The right wants the judges in place, but is it worth having the left walk out? The left wants the filibuster protected, but what will be the cost of continuing the fight? Can they afford to walk out, which could possibly cause them votes next year?

Out of this whole topic though, it is senators like Arlen Spector though that I have respect the most. They are following their own hearts and choices in deciding what is right, and are not just going with party lines, regardless of the heat being put on them from their peers.