Posted on 11/17/2003 2:45:59 AM PST by kattracks
(CNSNews.com) - After a 40-hour debate in the Senate failed to result in confirmation of stalled judicial nominees put forth by the Bush administration, a Republican senator said he planned to file a lawsuit with the U.S. Supreme Court to end what he called the Democrats' "unconstitutional filibuster."
"The bottom line is I've had it," Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said during an interview on Concerned Women Today, the daily radio show of the conservative organization Concerned Women for America (CWA).
"This process is going to destroy the constitutional system of appointing judges," Graham added. "It's going to drive good men and women away from wanting to serve."
Graham said he made his decision during the "Justice for Judges" marathon in the Senate, which began at 6 p.m. Wednesday and ended 40 hours later.
Under current rules, the 51 Republican senators set the chamber's agenda but need Democrats to pass legislation and nominees because it takes 60 votes to end debate. Without nine crossover Democrats, the debate never officially ends - the equivalent of a filibuster.
After the conclusion of the nonstop debate, Democrats maintained their filibuster against Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen and prevented votes on the nominations of two California Superior Court judges, Carolyn Kuhl and Janice Rogers Brown.
"I have decided as of 6 o'clock last night that I've had it, that I don't see any breakthrough anytime soon," Graham said during the Friday interview. "Sen. [Bill] Frist (R-Tenn.) is doing the best he can [as majority leader], so I have decided to take this case to the Supreme Court."
Regarding the Democratic filibusters of the judicial nominees, Graham said: "I think it's unconstitutional. I've got several senators who believe as I do. We have committed ourselves to bringing this issue before the Supreme Court."
Graham noted that he had "no idea" if the justices would deal with the matter or how they would rule if they did, "but I feel compelled as a senator to take this case to the Supreme Court because I'm not being allowed to vote as the Constitution requires me to vote."
Michael Schwartz, program host and CWA's vice president for government relations, praised Graham's plan.
"There is no reason to let the minority go undeterred as they flout their constitutional mandate to 'advise and consent' by refusing to give nominees an up-or-down vote, Schwartz said. "The majority should leave no stone unturned to end the unconstitutional tyranny of the minority."
However, other Republican senators were already examining alternative ways of overcoming the Democrats' filibusters.
Rick Santorum (R-Pa.), chairman of the Senate Republican Conference and organizer of the "Justice for Judges" marathon debate, joined Majority Leader Frist in stating they prefer to work within the institutions of the chamber rather than take the matter to the courts.
Frist said he is still considering pushing for a rules change that would gradually reduce the number of senators needed to confirm judicial nominations, the so-called "nuclear option" Republicans have so far avoided because they wish to retain the option of using the filibuster in the future.
Meanwhile, a number of liberal organizations applauded the Democrats in the Senate for preventing the confirmation of Bush' judicial nominees.
"The Senate should not confirm judges - male or female - whose records indicate they will roll back core legal protections that are necessary to ensure women's and girls' continued progress," said Judith C. Appelbaum, vice president and legal director of the National Women's Law Center.
"Shame on Republican leaders for calling up the most divisive nominees, like Brown, Kuhl and Owen, whom they know fair-minded senators must, and will, oppose," said Alliance for Justice President Nan Aron. "It is the Senate's constitutional duty to prevent these extreme individuals from serving lifetime positions on the federal bench."
See Earlier Story:
Senate Ends Marathon Talks With Stalemate (Nov. 14, 2003)
E-mail a news tip to Randy Hall.
Send a Letter to the Editor about this article.
Translation: "We don't like people actually holding others responsible for their conduct. We do like the idea that women can kill their unborn babies out of convenience. Morality doesn't even enter the picture. And we want your vote in 2004."
That's how it'd come out if those criminals told the TRUTH for a change...
And a real filibuster might actually be bad politics anyway. Anyway, it isn't going to happen. I want to know why out of 168, they can only find half a dozen that are objectionable to Chuck Shumer and company. I'd like to see them improve on that ratio.
Fact is, I don't know Owen, Pryor, Estrada, or Pickering. I don't know what sort of judges they would be. For all this coverage and "debate", I haven't got a clue if they would be Scalia-like, or Thomas-like, or Rehnquist-like, or Kennedy-like. So I have a hard time getting too worked up about it. The GOP is getting muscled by a united minority, plus the RINO middle that keeps them from going nuclear (bad analogy,in this terror age, by the way.)
But they make asses of themselves saying this is unconstitutional. Where in the constitution does it specify how the senate should give consent? It doesn't. Open and shut case. Graham's throwing a temper tantrum, or grandstanding, or both.
If Bush doesn't make "recess appointments" in a few weeks just as Bill Clinton did, then we should start a campaign for everyone to forward their "penis enlargement" spam to the Whitehouse email address.
It might make for some interesting newscasts.
Any thoughts?
Under current Senate rules, the Dems are mounting a real filibuster.
It's a gentlemans rule, they only have to notify the senate that they intend to filibuster. It takes 60 votes to force "cloture", or an end to debate. That's what a filibuster is, non-stop "debate".
I haven't seen any documentation of that. I haven't even heard that said. I have heard senators contend that filibuster of judges is unconstitutional. In fact, it has been done before, and there is nothing in the constitution to prevent it. It doesn't even say the Senate MUST vote on a nominee. It doesn't say the Senate MUST vote up or down. It simply says that any judicial appointee requires the consent of the Senate.
Sigh . . .It's a question of hardball. If you're not willing to throw the occasional inside fastball, you can't play in the big leagues.
The real reason Democrats can pull this sort of stunt--the reason the Democratic Party is effective at all--is that it aligns itself with the convenience of the horror show known as journalism. Thus the Democrats always have the PR wind at their backs.
It's no different that what happened during the Sore Loserman fiasco 3 years ago; no way a Republican pulls that sort of pettifogging and gets respectful press while doing it. And it has to be said that the courts do read the newspapers; Mr. Justice Thomas famously does not, but the exception proves the rule. If judges didn't read newspapers but ruled only on the merits, no judge who is remotely conservative would ever rule in favor of the FCC.
Because journalism is politics, and the FCC (i.e., an undemocratic arm of the government similar to the courts) gives licenses to an elite to conduct journalism (and other politics, not excluding our beloved el Rushbo) and not to we-the-people generally. And as all conservatives have reason to know, journalism is not less political when it claims to have no POV. Rather, the claim not to be political (while talking about politics!) is itself is extremely political; "The News" is even more tendentiously political than Rush Limbaugh is.
Licensing people to print political messages is anathema to the First Amendment; licensing people to convey political messages over "the public airwaves" no different--and has lead to the situation where The New York Times and its ilk serve as the standard for objectivity in broadcasting. Imagine! The First Amendment says that the private organization known as The New York Times can do just about anything with its press but drop it on your head, and the government can't regulate it at all. But if The New York Times says it is objective the government (the FCC) takes for granted that its licensees are operating in the public interest so long as they do not engage in constant flame wars with The New York Times!
He'll get his head handed to him in a basket.
One way of looking at it is that the president should make a recess appointment right now--because the Senate is, by refusing to vote, behaving exactly as if it were in recess!
You're exactly right. And when they bounce him out of court, it's going to give the other side even more momentum. What a fool. I've never liked this guy since he endorsed McCain over Bush in the 2000 primary. Self serving weasle.
He who goes the the SC first, loses. Their better bet is to simply confirm with 51 votes and let the other side challenge the validity of the appointment.
Not really. A true filibuster is done when you have fewer than 40 vote for your side and the only way to prevent a vote is to keep talking to there is no closing of the debate. That's certainly not the case here.
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.