Posted on 05/23/2005 5:23:07 PM PDT by kristinn
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
"In the end all we need is two Pubs that signed this deal (a gentleman's agreement amaong the 14 not the full senate) to change their vote (under pressure)"
Someone should form a warchest for this purpose right now! A place where people can contribute! Or is there an organization already focused on this?
I know the Right-to-Lifers are mobilized. Maybe they need to get into the streets.
I say, let's start finding Republicans to run against these guys now. Something.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
The Republicans presumably could say that some objection of the Dems is not extraordinary and so claim the agreement breached. But you would need enough Republican senators to say that, and these "moderates" may not all be convinced.
Why didn't we make them hold the floor?
Because aparently, they cannot. I thought we had more leverage on the RINOS. We obviously do not.
Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
This is problematic to say the least. The language of the stipulation gives the donks the filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances", but does not give the majority the right to nuke the filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances". Nothing good can come of this. We must target the RINOS for defeat.
That's not how you fix things. The RINOs need to go, and we need to get busy to make that happen.
The question foremost in my mind is "can you see an 'extraordinary circumstance' where 51 senators would approve a nominee? If a majority of the senators would approve a nominee, how can that person be, by definition, labelled "extreme" or "out of the mainstream"? And if a majority would not approve, why filibuster?
What I think has happened here is that the squishies in the middle of both parties have punted the ball downfield. Really nothing has been resolved other than we got three judges (the ones the Dems called the most extreme of the extreme, btw, making the whole 'extraordinary circumstance' premise even more ludicrous than it already is) out of filibuster and the Dems still have the option to filibuster the rest - with the pledge of at least six RINOs that they will break ranks on the "nuclear option" if it is brought up.
Next, we will see who blinks first (as if we couldn't guess?).
"I will call him tomorrow to advise him that he is a man without a party."
Good to hear. There is a party that loves him, though.
I am not running for Senate Majority leader
This is only in a world where logic and consistency rule -- and that is not Democratic politics!
Are you aware there is a concept known as the separation of powers in the Constitution?
Is tarring and feathering politicians outlawed nowadays?
You hit the nail on the head. Good post.
RR subscribed to the belief that it is amazing what can be accomplished if it doesn't matter who gets the credit. But once, just once, I'd love to see the press say "those republicans really stuck to their guns and did what was right and they won big." I'd settle for a comment that would suggest this could work to the GOP's advantage.
Everything is framed in the press from the Dem POV. It's a win for the Dems (at the expense of the big bad Republicans), or a loss for the Dems (shocking, something must be the matter. The voters must be stupid!). I'm just sick of it.
/pity party.
I agree the vote on the three, including Pryor whom Schumer said should be excluded from office because of his Catholic religious beliefs, is a good thing. But it seems that agreeing not to have a rules change vote on the filibuster in this Congress is a very heavy price to pay.
Senator John McCain is now for all intents and purposes the leader of the Republican Party.
As McCain said, "the Senate will not be run by the folks at the extremes."
McCain brokered the deal, not Frist.
No point, just a simple question...
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.