Ending the Judicial Nomination Impasse (Senator Frist's Comments on the Floor Today)

Real Clear Politics ^ | April 28, 2005 | Senator Bill Frist

[RWR8189]

(Note: Majority Leader Frist delivered the following remarks on the floor of the United States Senate today.)

Throughout the judicial obstruction debate, emotions have run high on both sides. This should remind all of us, once again, of the need to return civility to our nation’s capital.

The American people want their elected leaders to work together to find solutions. To them -- doing what’s Republican or Democrat matters far less than doing what’s right for our country.

Let me briefly discuss how we got here.

Never in 214 years -- never in the history of the Senate -- had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote…until two years ago.

In the last Congress, the President submitted 34 appeals court nominees to the Senate. A minority of senators denied ten of those nominees -- and threatened to deny another six -- up-or-down votes.

They wouldn’t allow votes, because they knew the nominees would be confirmed and become judges. The nominees had the support of a majority of senators.

Now, in this new Congress, the same minority says it will continue to obstruct votes on judges. And, even worse, if they don’t get their way, they threaten to shut down the Senate and obstruct government itself.

Throughout this debate, we have held firm to a simple principle -- judicial nominees deserve up-or-down votes. Vote for them. Vote against them. But give them the courtesy of a vote.

Yet judicial nominees have not been given that courtesy. They’ve gone 2, 3, even 4 years without a vote. Now 46 seats on the federal bench are vacant -- as case after case and appeal after appeal stack up.

One nominee -- Priscilla Owen -- has served 10 years as a justice on the Texas Supreme court. She won reelection with 84% of the vote in Texas, yet she can’t get the courtesy of a vote to be confirmed by the Senate.

Judicial nominees are being denied. Justice is being denied. The solution is simple -- allow Senators to do their jobs and vote.

In the spirit of civility and with sincere hope for a solution, I make an offer.

This offer will ensure up or down votes on judicial nominees after fair, open, and, some might say, exhaustive debate. It’s a compromise that holds to constitutional principles.

First, never in the history of the Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote until two years ago. However, it was not unprecedented either for Republicans or Democrats to block judicial nominees in committee.

Whether on the floor or in committee, judicial obstruction is judicial obstruction. It’s time for judicial obstruction to end no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.

The judiciary committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process. But the committee -- whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats -- will no longer be used to obstruct judicial nominees.

Second, fair and open debate is a hallmark of the Senate. Democrats have expressed their desire for more time to debate judicial nominees. I respect that request and honor it.

When a judicial nominee comes to the floor, we will set aside up to 100 hours to debate that nomination. Then the Senate as a whole will speak with an up-or-down vote.

The Senate operated this way before we began to broadcast debates on television in 1986. This would provide more than enough time for every Senator to speak on a nominee while guaranteeing that nominee the courtesy of a vote.

Third, these proposals will apply only to appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Judges who serve on these courts have the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution.

So far, only up-or-down votes on appeals court nominees have been denied. I sincerely hope the Senate minority does not intend to escalate its judicial obstruction to potential Supreme Court nominees.

That would be a terrible blow to constitutional principles and to political civility in America. I hope my offer will make it unnecessary for the minority to further escalate its judicial obstruction.

Fourth, the minority of senators who have denied votes on judicial nominees are concerned that their ability to block bills will be curbed. As Majority Leader, I guarantee that power will be protected.

The filibuster -- as it existed before its unprecedented use on judicial nominees in the last Congress -- will remain unchanged.

Senator Reid and I have been talking almost every day on this issue. And I’m hopeful he’ll accept my offer as a solution. It may not be a perfect proposal for either side, but it’s the right proposal for America.

For 70% of the 20th Century, the same party controlled the White House and the Senate. Yet no minority ever denied a judicial nominee with majority support an up-or-down vote until the last Congress.

These minorities showed self-restraint. They treated judicial nominees with fairness. And they respected the Senate’s role in the appointments process -- as designed by the Framers of the Constitution.

Resolving the judicial obstruction debate, for me, isn’t about politics. This is about constitutional principles. It’s about fairness to nominees. It’s about Senators doing their duty and doing what’s right for our country.

Arbitrarily voting on just a few judicial nominees, as some have proposed, will fail to restore the Senate’s 214 year practice of up-or-down votes for all judicial nominees that come to the floor.

Senators have a duty to vote up-or-down on judicial nominees -- confirm them or deny them -- but give them all the courtesy of a vote.

 

[BobL]

Frist has himself a free pass to the Republican nomination if he continues to hold firm (even if the Dems ultimately win).

Keep it up, Bill!!

[conservativecorner]

I'm genuinely impressed with Senate Majority Leader Frist's comments BUMP!!

[1stFreedom]

blah blah blah blah...

Funny how the business of the Senate keeps going on, and Frist just blows hot air..

[Lancey Howard]

Excellent comments!

[Soul Seeker]

He was good today.

All Reid could return in rebuttal was that Frist blew wet kisses.

[RobbyS]

Leader Frist has learned that the Senate is largely made up of lawyers, men who have been trained in obfuscation.

[Christian4Bush]

bump...

[sport]

When is the vote to change the rules going to take place?

[gorgeman]

How many times have we seen Frist cave in to the liberals. Will this time be any different?

[LibertarianInExile]

I want clarification on why the district court nominees are left out. Why would they NOT be included in any "offer!?!?"

The libs will never go for this, anyway. The Circuit Courts are the ones they want blocked the most. We'd have a Republican-nominated majority on 11 of 13 courts that way.

And as much as I hate to say it, because I'm sure it would end up putting Hawaii and Guam in the same circuit as California--SPLIT THE NINTH! If the judges hate it, it's a great idea! Put Cali, Hawaii, Wash, Oregon, and the Pacific territories in one, and Alaska, Nevada, Arizona, and Montana in the other...and pack those babies!

[BobL]

"I want clarification on why the district court nominees are left out."

Keep in mind that Frist is placating the "moderates" in the Republican party by this offer. By leaving out the District Court nominees, he really does bring some meat to the table. The wishy-washies can't say that Frist is not acting in good faith now.

But the truth is that the Dems could stonewall some District judges, but not in a wholesale way, without looking like absolute losers (even more).

On the other hand, I doubt that the Dems will buy this deal - but hopefully the "moderates" in the Republican Party will.

[Carry_Okie]

This should remind all of us, once again, of the need to return civility to our nation’s capital.

False premise. As long as Republicans are in power, Democrats will NEVER be civil.

[BobL]

" False premise. As long as Republicans are in power, Democrats will NEVER be civil."

Watch it pal, you're implying that Democrats could be civil if they regain power. You realize that you could be kicked off of this site for saying something so extreme

[Carry_Okie]

SPLIT THE NINTH!

As much as I agree that it should be split, the demographics will probably dictate a north/south division.

[Carry_Okie]

Watch it pal, you're implying that Democrats could be civil if they regain power.

They're much more congenial when in power, even if what they DO is far more evil.

[LibertarianInExile]

Unfortunately. But I think the historic western-vs.-coastal states considerations would make the case law in states like those I mentioned stay closer.

They split it I'll be happy. As long as they split the judges, too. No sense in keeping ALL of them on the same bench, eh?

[rwfromkansas]

Wow....and I was a bit worried when I heard Frist was going to offer a counter compromise. This is actually a very good solution.

If the Dems don't take this, I believe Frist will go nuclear.

This is a dang good solution, one that I can support (providing that 100 hours goes pretty much non-stop.....it could take 8 months to rack up that long of a time period if it is spaced out with other things). The phraseology of set aside makes me think it will be 100 hours straight, so that might take a couple weeks, a time period that is just fine.

But, I firmly agree with him. No matter who is in control, people deserve and up or down vote.

"Whether on the floor or in committee, judicial obstruction is judicial obstruction. It’s time for judicial obstruction to end no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.

The judiciary committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process. But the committee -- whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats -- will no longer be used to obstruct judicial nominees.

Second, fair and open debate is a hallmark of the Senate. Democrats have expressed their desire for more time to debate judicial nominees. I respect that request and honor it.

When a judicial nominee comes to the floor, we will set aside up to 100 hours to debate that nomination. Then the Senate as a whole will speak with an up-or-down vote.

The Senate operated this way before we began to broadcast debates on television in 1986. This would provide more than enough time for every Senator to speak on a nominee while guaranteeing that nominee the courtesy of a vote.

Third, these proposals will apply only to appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Judges who serve on these courts have the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution..."

[Carry_Okie]

They split it I'll be happy. As long as they split the judges, too.

That probably isn't likely either, unless a "Republican" Congress grows a collective spine. They certainly have the power to do it that way.

[rwfromkansas]

Do we have any info on when his compromise will be voted on?