So, why are the DemocRATs pursuing such scorched-earth tactics? Is it because they realize they are doomed to suffer defeat in the end, and their only victories can be short-term ones?
The DemocRATs have gone beyond those limits, thus provoking a further serious limitation on the filibuster power. Because of the Fortas precedent, the DemocRATs could probably have gotten away with filibustering Supreme Court appointments.
United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary Statement of The Honorable John Cornyn United States Senator, Texas,May 6, 2003
To justify the current filibusters, some have cited the example of Abe Fortas. President Lyndon Johnson nominated Fortas to be Chief Justice in 1968. But what is critical to understand about the Fortas episode is that majority rule was not under attack in that case. Dogged by allegations of ethical improprieties and bipartisan opposition, Fortas was unable to obtain the votes of 51 Senators to prematurely end debate. That was a serious problem for Fortas - because, if there were not even 51 Senators to close debate, it was far from clear that there would be a simple majority of Senators present and voting to vote to confirm. Rather than allow further debate, Johnson withdrew the nomination altogether just three days later.
It's also worth noting that, back in 1968, future Carter and Clinton White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler, along with numerous other leading members of the bar and the legal academy, signed a letter urging all Senators that "nothing would more poorly serve our constitutional system than for the nominations to have earned the approval of the Senate majority, but to be thwarted because the majority is denied a chance to vote." Without objection, that letter will be entered into the record.
But of course, as I mentioned, Fortas wasn't able to get the support of even 51 votes to close debate, and Johnson withdrew the nomination as a result, so the Cutler letter was moot.
The Fortas episode is thus a far cry from the present situation. And the Cutler letter, condemning filibusters of judicial nominations when used to deny the majority its right to consent, most certainly would apply today. After extensive debate, Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owen, and countless others enjoy enthusiastic, bipartisan majority support, yet they face an uncertain future of indefinite debate.
Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, The Constitution:....MR. STEVEN CALABRESI " Now for the first time in 214 years of American history an angry minority of Senators is seeking to extend the tradition of filibustering from legislation to judicial nominees who enjoy the support of a majority of the Senate. This unprecedented extension of the filibuster to judicial nominees threatens to raise the vote required for senatorial confirmation of judges from 51 to 60 votes. This is a direct violation of the Advice and Consent Clause, which clearly contemplates only a majority vote to confirm a judge. Raising the vote required to confirm a judge will weaken the power of the President in this area in direct violation of the Constitution while augmenting the power of a minority of the Senate. Giving a minority of Senators a veto over judicial nominees will also threaten the independence of the federal judiciary in direct violation of the separation of powers. So, why are the DemocRATs pursuing such scorched-earth tactics? Is it because they realize they are doomed to suffer defeat in the end, and their only victories can be short-term ones?
They have everything to gain and nothing to lose from a populace that is ignorant, apathetic and fed a 24/7 stream of propaganda from the mass media, or from their own constituency - some of the most evil people to ever walk the earth. They have nothing to fear from a slim majority of 'moderate' Senate Republicans, or from BUSH, whose #1 priority has been dealing with foreign enemies, before dealing with the domestic enemies in the Senate President Calls for Judicial Reform.
Why The Democrats Are The Way They Are -- Phyllis Schlafly Nov. ... EMILY's List, which contributes only to Democratic pro-abortion feminist candidates, put $20 million into political campaigns in 2000 and another $20 million into campaigns this year. That's twice as much as the second largest political action committee. Such a vast amount of money explains why Democratic Senators don't dare to confirm a judge who is pro-life.