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.
So what's new here.......the Republicans cave yet again!!
After the up or down vote on ONLY THREE of Bush's nominees, the Demoncrats have their precious filibuster in play once again for ALL NOMINATIONS to any court, including the Supreme court. In fact, they will be able to now play the "gracious" card. They will trumpet their compromise, their graciousness to President Bush on these three nominations in the court of public opinion. It's all posturing so they aren't seen as obstructionists. In the meantime, they lie in wait for the real showdown where all the marbles are on the table - The Supreme Court. This compromise dealt today becomes ammo for the real fight.
We "real" conservatives were only 24 hours from the showdown, the pinnacle to which we have waited for months to employ part of the Bush agenda only to be thoroughly and wretchedly disappointed once again. These guys we have elected to office in the name of conservatism are nothing but a big tease. They talk big, they threaten big, but when push comes to shove they melt in the hands of the minority. It is so disheartening to see this behaviour over and over and over again. Imagine if the Dems were in power 55-45, they'd be shoving their agenda down our throats no questions asked.
Social conservatives are growing weary from being sold out. Partial Birth Abortion Ban passes and then is rectified by the liberal agenda through the courts. So we need to change the courts, the system by which we are continously hoodwinked. So here we are at the juncture and our weak-kneed Senators sell us out AGAIN!!! If any Republican is reading this and you have influence in our conservatively elected Congress please take note: Social Conservatives are beginning to feel as if we elected a "pig-in-a-poke." At some point the agenda has to be moved in our direction, at some point there needs to be a payoff however small. We are looking at what is happening in the Senate with keen interest. To control the Executive and Legislative brances and NOT get the same percentages of Judges seated as Clinton is UNFORGIVABLE. Trust me, we social conservatives won't be around forever waiting for you to grow a spine. There is a point at which we begin to collectively throw our hands in the air. And we are close to that time!!!!!!!!!!
RINOs like Chaffee help Republicans maintain a majority status, from where they can set the agenda.
let us all not forget mccain is the leader of this group and if the dems claim "extraordinary". mccain will too.
He certainly does not have to listen to their advise, but the constitution CLEARLY GIVES THE SENATE the role of providing "advise" to the President. That's why it is called the "advise and consent" clause.
Of course, President Bush HAS been consulting with home-state senators all along, so the idea that he hasn't is a lie.
The President does have to realise that while we are all "one party", the Senate has ALWAYS considered itself special, and the Senate/Executive relationship is always somewhat adversarial, and was even when it was democrats in charge. The Senate is a little like the "nobles". You can hear it in their voice every time they look down on that "other body", the house, as a bunch of commoners.
The President will continue to nominate judges, listening to the advice of the senate as he always has.
The Democrats (at least 7 of them), having previously supported filibusters based on orders from the party (who based it on the political leanings of the candidate), now have pledged to support filibusters only in "extraordinary circumstances", which has always been the case (Abe Fortas was an "extraordinary circumstance", as he was under an ethical cloud. Being a Conservative Christian is not an extraordinary circumstance).
Senator Schumer started all this in 2001, with his new rule that Judges should be rejected, regardless of qualification, simply to satisfy a quota rule -- an Affirmative Action plan. Whatever else you can say bad about this agreement (and I think there are problems with it), seven democrats just repudiated the political litmus test for judges. We appear to be back to the day when a Clarence Thomas can be confirmed 51-49, rather than 60-40.
This does send a signal to Senator Reid, that he can't count on party loyalty if he sticks with Schumer and Kennedy. "Extraordinary Circumstances" won't cover the "we can't take this qualified judge because we just put a catholic on that bench".
The important thing now is for the Republicans to sell this appropriately. We should talk up the death of the Affirmative Action plan for Judges. Point out that we were willing to go the extra mile just to get the democrats to back off their destruction of the Senate. Note that we are now voting on judges that the democrats insisted last month were unfit, and now they are getting 60+ votes (I certainly hope that part of this agreement is a gentleman's deal that the democrats will vote for these judges.
There is much left to be seen. If the republicans vote against any of these judges, then we should destroy them.
Saad was a lost cause anyway -- he violated the stupid rule that a Judge can't say anything while he's waiting. Once he sent that e-mail attacking a Senator, he was toast. It is surprising that the democrats even needed to threaten a filibuster on him, usually the Senators stand up for one another when the Senate is being attacked.
There is a lot to fear about this deal. BUT, at the moment it is mostly a mystery. We get three very good judges. BTW, we also likely get 3 other judges that aren't named because they were actually being HELD and I think they are going to be released. Saad is gone, I bet they give him a vote and reject him, or more likely they tell Bush and Saad withdraws.
Myers would still be a good fight. I think the republicans want him up to get Ken Salazar on record since the Senator used to support him. The agreement doesn't say he will still be filibustered, it just doesn't guarantee him a vote.
The bottomline is that "extreme circumstances" is not defined and gives the RINOS some wiggle room, a wiggle being inspired by plummeting numbers among conservative voters in their respective home states.
If Readers Digest were condensing this affair, it would read thusly..."We screwed the pubs one more time"...
So, when Sen. Graham told us that he would accept no deal that fell short of allowing an up or down vote on all nominees, he lied.
In addition, how do we know the Democrats involved in this who agreed to vote for cloture also did not secure agreements from the Republicans involved that they would vote against the confirmation of these nominees, thus defeating them?
Mccain is the leader of this revolt and he is going to side with the dems on every "extraordinary" event!!!
We won and bigger than I thought.
No wonder they are on your case.
True. But let me tell you that if McCain runs (pretty sure) or even Graham, I am a NH resident and plan to take the opportunity while citizens can actually ask a question and give it to them with cameras rolling. I know the MSM will not play an embarrasing question posed by a citizen but trust me I'll have my own crew and with the internet - wallah!
This is pure surrender.
Of 7 nominees, our Rinos have agreed that the majority party deserves 3 of them. That's not even 50%....absolutely incredible.
After those 3 everything is up in the air and filibusters are acceptable means of dealing with them.
It is not just capitulation; it is cowering capitulation.
I'm absolutely amazed that Hagel isn't on that list. Other than the fact that none of the 7 traitors has ever committed motor vehicular homicide, I'm wondering what differentiates them from Ted Kennedy?
I agree - this is not too bad. 10 yards and a cloud of dust. And now the moderates can't say the conservatives aren't willing to bargain.
With the time left in this session of Congress, this is good news IF they can get all three of the "agreeables" plus two of the "almost agreeables" through this year. While I can hardly stomach the idea of McCain having any apearance of leadership in this, I won't begrudge him a small measure of progress.
The main reason I am not too fired up about this deal is the Constitutional Option would only force a REAL filibuster - it IS NOT a gaurantee the nominations get through. These 14 monderates would(will) have even more leverage if (when) that happened. Of course I am disappointed because I was really, really looking forward to a real old style filibuster. And having any of these three as the focal point would have made it tough to defend.
In the end, we get progress and look forward to the day of the big fight over SCOTUS nominations. That is the time when the big throwdown should happen.
Yep. Some genuine, unapologetic conservatives destined for the SCOTUS. :)
Dubya is not someone you want to bet against.
I wouldn't consult with the Democrats. And furthermore, we can only hope that the Democrats won't consider all subsequent conservative Bush nominees "extraordinary circumstances."
The 7 dems could have simply voted for cloture, but they needed something to cover themselves in their own caucus.
We obviously see the harm our senators have done to our side, but there is another side. Leahy, Schumer, Biden, and several others got up and attacked the nominees as totally unacceptable. And now they are going to be confirmed.
I will note that, so far as I could tell (I didn't listen to it all), Hillary Clinton did not really bash the nominees today, she talked about the senate. And Senator Byrd never really attacked the nominees that much either, he talked about the rules.
The democrats who got up the last few days and talked about how it was so important to stop these nominees that 60 votes should be required, have had the rug cut out from under them as well.
BTW, outside of the activist circles, both Frist and Reid have been talking compromise for weeks, so in the land of the masses I think they both come out OK on this. Reid was looking for a way out, his own state didn't back the filibuster.
The MSM will say the democrats won, and we need to make sure that our side points out what WE won. I'm not saying we forget what we lost, but we shouldn't act as if getting most of the judges doesn't matter (We probably get the michigan judges as well except Saad, they were never an issue).
My guess is that next week Bush nominates Levin's relative. I know it sucks, but that would be the final straw to close the books on this whole rotton episode. There are a lot of appeals courts positions to fill, and Bush should be able to put sound constitutionalists up for all of them, especially if he can find some judges of moderate political leanings who happen to agree with strict constructionism.
I fear for the Supreme Court, but I've always assumed that, when push came to shove, the pro-choice republicans were never going to put a judge on the Supreme Court who would cause them to overturn Roe V. Wade.
We're only going to get a good Roe-V-Wade decision if God converts the hearts of people already on the bench. That is my prayer. We've had plenty of drifts to liberalism, but God can perform miracles.
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.