Posted on 05/09/2005 2:49:51 PM PDT by Parmenio
The Peter Principles: Sanity clause By Peter Roff UPI Senior Political Analyst Published May 9, 2005
WASHINGTON -- Within the next two weeks, say those in the know on Capitol Hill, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is going to pull the trigger on the so-called constitutional option and break the logjam over judicial nominations.
Unless something happens.
Frist and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., who refuses to yield on the filibuster as a matter of party policy, are staring across the abyss at each other with no way to move ahead without falling in. They are also limited in their ability to back up, however. Retreat, no matter how slight, would not just bring about a loss of face but would cause a political revolt among the hardened ideologues and activists backing up the retreating side.
Both sides have worked hard to define their arguments and, largely, have convinced their supporters they are right and the other side is wrong. Democrats, who frame the issue in terms of fairness and the protection of minority rights, say Bush's blocked nominees are too far outside the legal mainstream. The filibuster, they say, is the only way to keep them from taking lifetime seats on the federal bench.
Republicans claim the fairness mantle, too. They argue correctly that, until now, the filibuster has never been used to block the Senate from giving its advice and consent to a judicial nomination enjoying majority support.
Both sides are dug in. Reid cannot abandon the use of the filibuster without incurring the wrath of groups like MoveOn.org and People for the American Way. Frist must find a way to get the blocked judges confirmed or face the end of his 2008 presidential hopes. From all appearances and under these circumstances, for one side to win, the other must lose.
It is therefore ironic that the man Frist replaced as GOP Senate leader and the Democrat Republicans most hoped to beat in 2006 may have been the ones to figure out a way around the impasse.
Sens. Trent Lott, R-Miss., and Ben Nelson, D-Neb., have been at work for some time, sources on Capitol Hill have said repeatedly, on some kind of a compromise that would break the logjam without changing Senate rules and procedures. A story appearing Monday in Roll Call, a newspaper that covers politics on Capitol Hill, gives the rumored idea form and shape.
Lott, the leader in the effort, is known for keeping his own counsel on such matters but after the story appeared, Susan Irby, Lott's communications director, issued a statement saying there was in fact no deal and that Lott remained committed to having an or-or-down vote on all the pending judicial nominees.
Nevertheless, the idea the story brings to light is intriguing.
Essentially, a half-dozen senators from each party would commit, in writing, to support the preservation of the filibuster for judicial nominees in exchange for it not being used except, the paper said, in "extreme circumstances."
With 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent in the Senate, six is a magic number. If six Republicans vote against Frist on the effort to change Senate confirmation procedure, the effort fails. If six Democrats vote "Yes" on a motion to cut off debate on a nomination, the filibuster ends and the Senate can move to a vote.
To sweeten the deal, the Republicans would agree to pull three of the seven judicial candidates blocked by filibuster in the last Congress and renominated by the president in this one. The Democrats involved would agree to hold to the deal even in the case of a Supreme Court vacancy; again, except in "extreme circumstances."
A deal such as this requires an enormous amount of trust on both sides, at least among the senators involved. It would also face withering criticism from some on the GOP side because it implicitly enshrines the filibuster as a legitimate tactic where judicial nominations enjoying majority support are concerned, a contention Republicans have rejected since the beginning of the current imbroglio.
Nevertheless, the idea it is not without considerable appeal. As an agreement between senators rather than a change to Senate rules or procedures, it is immediately enforceable. And it preserves the threat of much-discussed change in rules or procedures to keep it enforceable. Under the deal as described, the Democrats would only have to fail to honor their pledge to vote for cloture once before giving the Republicans the cover necessary to change the confirmation process.
With suspicions running high inside the Senate and even higher around the country among activists, the deal could come apart over issues like the definition of "extreme circumstances." In the main, however, Republicans would be well advised to consider it seriously if it is being offered in the same vein. From the start, they have argued that the filibuster's use in this fashion is illegitimate, and their goal all along has been to win confirmation of Bush's circuit-court nominees. The rumored Lott-Nelson deal would, for the most part, get them where they have said all along they wanted to go if -- and this is an admittedly important caveat -- it is as offered by the other side.
--
(The Peter Principles is a regular column on politics, culture and the media by Peter Roff, UPI political analyst and 20-year veteran of the Washington scene.)
--
(The Peter Principles explores issues in national and local politics, the U.S. culture and the media. It is written by Peter Roff, UPI political analyst and 20-year veteran of the Washington scene.)
"Lott, the leader in the effort, is known for keeping his own counsel on such matters but after the story appeared, Susan Irby, Lott's communications director, issued a statement saying there was in fact no deal and that Lott remained committed to having an or-or-down vote on all the pending judicial nominees."
I have never heard of this web site, but if this is true, my support for the Republicans is over. There is zero reason to pull ANY candidates and there is absolutely NO reason to trust the Democrats when they promise a deal like this.
Then the Republicans can just as well forget it. Democrats can't be trusted.
It is absurd that there is any talk of trust when it is assumed that six Republicans might vote against their own party, but that no Democrats will vote against THEIRS! NOT ONE!
Why would there be any sane reason to trust the Democrats to keep their word? We give up three nominees in return for an empty promise from the dims not to filibuster except in extreme circumstances, as defined by them.
This is a line of retreat for Senate Republicans in case they don't have the votes to end the filibuster. If you see this compromise used you'll know Frist didn't have the votes in the first place. It's just a face saving maneuver.
Absolutely we should not trust the Democrats with this "compromise" (read retreat). I think I said that in my post.
They say they won't filibuster even a Supreme Court nomination if we make this deal. If the Republicans believe that, they are even more naive than I feared.
A Constitutionally-elected President has chosen these judges. George W. Bush gained office by a majority of votes in the electoral college, as well as by a majority of individual voters in the country, as evidenced by the popular vote. Additionally, the voters of this country increased the number of Republican Senators. If the full Senate is allowed to vote on Bush's nominees, they will all be approved with ease. Yet, the democrats claim (with straight faces) that these nominees, chosen by a president who received more votes than anyone in history, and sure to be approved by a majority of senators, are outside the legal mainstream.
Sorry, I meant to reply to post #1. I got so PO'd at Lott I wasn't seeing straight!
They will lose a lot of support from a lot of people. Especially Senate Republicans!
NO!!
This "extreme circumstances" garbage is nothing more than an excuse for the democrats to reneg on the compromise.
In fairness to Lott, the author of this article is the one promoting the idea. According to the article, Lott's spokesman said that Lott's position is he supports an up or down vote for all nominees.
LOL.
I know what you mean. I'm pretty PO'd right now myself.
Dear Mr. Roff:
Allow me to express my thoughts on your suggestion...
no
No
NO
NO!
NO!!
NO!!!
NO!!!!
H*** NO!!!!
Clear?
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.