Posted on 04/28/2005 8:19:13 AM PDT by smoothsailing
It's More than Judges
The filibuster-happy Democrats have a grand scheme.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid doesn't seem to get the fact that George W. Bush won the presidential election last November. He also doesn't get that the Republicans picked up five seats in the Upper Chamber. That's called a mandate. Despite this, Reid believes he can negotiate, or even dictate, which judicial appointments can be voted on in the Senate.
That's utterly preposterous, and it's one of the many reasons why Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist must put Reid and the rest of the filibustering Senate Democrats in their place once and for all.
There is no political or constitutional reason why every presidential judicial nomination should not be voted on. That includes nominees for the Supreme Court, the appellate courts, and on down the line. But the Senate Democrats are standing in the way of every nominee the president sends over, vowing to re-filibuster many that the president nominated in his first term.
But before we get into what can be done about this, let's take a careful look at the Democrats' broader strategy — which is a carefully constructed plan to obstruct and undermine the conservative's post-election reform agenda for both foreign and domestic policy.
After blocking the judicial nominees, the Democrats will attempt to obstruct all pro-growth, pro-business legislation that makes it to the Senate. On the energy bill, they could attempt to filibuster any legislated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). They could hold up the budget because they don't want to extend the president's tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. If a good asbestos bill comes around, they could obstruct that too. CAFTA and other free-trade opening measures could also be stopped.
It's already more than judges. Democratic Sen. Max Baucus has a hold on all Treasury Department nominations, including one deputy secretary, two undersecretaries, and three assistant secretaries. One of these assistant positions oversees terrorist money flows. Why is Baucus doing this? Because he doesn't agree with U.S. policy on Cuba. Instead of filling some important posts in an important government department, he's aiding the Castro-Chavez axis.
Make no mistake about it: The Democratic strategy is to attempt to encroach on presidential authority in every single area. Why do you think John Bolton is having such a tough time being affirmed for the U.N.? Judges, Treasury, Bolton — they're all linked.
There's a way around this, of course. It's called the "nuclear option," and it's been used before — by Senate Democrats.
In 1975, Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia introduced a bill that was co-sponsored by liberal Republicans Robert Griffin and Hugh Scott, along with old liberal Democratic warhorse, Mike Mansfield. The intent of this bill was to change the standing rules to permit "limitation of debate" (i.e., ending a filibuster) with a three-fifths vote of the whole Senate.
The Byrd resolution was postponed indefinitely. But in March 1975 a bill sponsored by then-Sen. Walter Mondale contained the same language as the Byrd bill, and it passed. Any change of the standing rules today is labeled the "nuclear option." Back then a rule-change seemed only a small firecracker.
According to reports, Byrd also changed Senate precedents with simple up-or-down majority votes in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987. In other words, there is a clear history of rule-changing by the very same "nuclear option" that Byrd vehemently objects to today.
But once the bomb, or firecracker, goes off in the Senate, the air is going to clear. With an end to judicial filibusters, judges William Pryor, Priscilla Owens, Richard Griffin, Henry Saad, and Susan Neilson will all get a fair shot at being confirmed. The business community, which has been opposed to the nuclear option, will also enjoy the filibuster-free air. Senate Democrats, playing by the new rules, will have a much tougher time standing in the way of tort reform, energy reform, and quite possibly Social Security reform and tax reform.
While there is a precedent for changing the rules in the Senate, there is none for the type of obstructionism we're seeing from the modern Democratic party. As Hugh Hewitt and Duane Patterson point out, there was exactly 1 judicial nominee filibustered on the Senate floor in the 20th century — the ethically challenged judge Abe Fortas. There have already been 10 such filibustered nominees in the 21st century, and we're only 5 years in.
For Byrd, Reid, and the rest of the Democrats to protest that the Senate rules are inviolable, when it's clear that all they have in mind is their own political advantage, is the height of hypocrisy.
It's time for the Senate Republicans to go nuclear. It's time for the president and the GOP to enjoy the mandate they earned in the voting booth last fall.
— Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is host of CNBC's Kudlow & Company and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow's Money Politic$.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200504280929.asp
Larry--Good piece and right on!!!!
Read his blog, he is a good man, discovered God, reformed alcoholic.
That's utterly preposterous, and it's one of the many reasons why Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist must put Reid and the rest of the filibustering Senate Democrats in their place once and for all.
This is nothing more than wishful thinking on the author's part. In reality, Reid knows he will win, the RINOs will immediately cave and the dems will control the Senate for all intents and purposes.
So,I guess we will know if you are right some time relatively soon.
Reid knows nothing of the kind or he wouldn't be crying on the Floor of the Senate. No one knows except *maybe* Mitch McConnell since he is charged with counting the votes.
Kudlow is correct.
This battle is, to opt for a Dem word, 'nuanced'. There are several factors at play here.
Kudlow addresses an important factor. The Democrats need to be humbled. They need to be taught they are the minority. The Republicans risk having their authority on any issue stripped away if they cave to the minority. I'm not threatening votes in this sense either. If the Minority can win an issue that is fundmental to the Republican base, they will claim victory on all legislation. They, the Minority, will have taken power of the Government in every branch excepting perhaps the house by default.
Do the good citizens of Montana who elected Max Baucus to the Senate know that Baucus is a pro-Castro/Chavez leftist? I think not, or they would holler out for his recall ! (Does Montana have recall as an option for the voters?)
Baucus is one of those frauds who votes Leftist, then poses as a 'moderate' when he goes home to the constituency in Montana.
I'm still wondering why the dems weren't stopped after their very first attempt of filibustering - four years or so ago. Why does it now get to be important (after 10+ nominees are threatened with filibuster).
Good piece but with one unasked and unanswered question - who is behind this? I do not believe this started because Bush in 2001 was seen without a mandate. My gut tells me this is Hillary's doing. What say you guys and gals?
Think "double-wide presidential library".
How is that if the rules change only applies to judicial nominations?
This would not even be an issue had they just pulled the trigger and did it. They allow these type things to drag on and the dem attack machine to gear up and shape the debate. Quit being pansies and do what is right.
Bolton will be confirmed,the President will get his judges,and the Hammer will emerge stronger than before.
Have you noticed all the dems scurrying around to refile trip records with the ethics committee?Or Reid begging for compromise on judges while Frist ignores him?Or that Melody Townsel is actually Joe Bidens daughter.
Come on,enough of the gloom and doom.:^)
bump to the top
There is no one person behind this attack. The collective left are desperate because all the gains that they achieved under the the Clinton administration are falling apart. The left was using the extreme feminists, abortion, gay marriage, minority rights and politically correct speech to undermine the culture and control the agenda of the whole country. The direction that they were moving was of course a leftward movement toward a socialist one world government. George Bush and the events of 9/11 have stopped them in their tracks. The only way that they can see to get back on track is to demean the Christian religion which serves as the moral backbone of the constituion, the whole legal system and the American people. My husband keeps saying that we are watching the Democrats Gone Wild.
Could be they just want to be a minority party again. Not so many headaches.
There is a long history of dysfunction, on both sides of the aisle. The best piece I have read so far, albeit not an easy read, is:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Gold_Gupta_JLPP_article.pdf <--
I agree with Kudlow's basic premise, that the DEM conduct is more than about judicial nominees. But so what? We always knew the DEMs are generally obstructionist against smaller government and moves toward more personal independence.
Good one!
Good point. Personally, I don't the agree with the idea of eliminating the filibuster on legislation, something which really does have a long and legitimate tradition in the Senate. Using a 60-vote requirement to deny entire slates of qualified Presidential appointees has no legitimate tradition in the Senate, and arguably violates the spirit (if not the letter itself) of the Constitution.
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.