Posted on 06/18/2003 12:12:04 PM PDT by Phlap
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Wednesday brushed aside a request by Senate Democrats for more influence in the selection of any U.S. Supreme Court nominations.
Democrats have urged President Bush to avert a major confirmation battle by consulting with them before making his selection. "The more we can consult, the more we can meet, the more we can talk about avoiding a major confrontation, the better off the country and the system will be," Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said after meeting with Bush at the White House.
But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called Daschle's request a "novel new approach to how the Constitution guides the appointment process."
"We always welcome thoughts, but certainly no one wants to suggest that the Constitution be altered," Fleischer told reporters.
While none of the nine justices have said they plan to retire, any such decision could be announced at the end of the court's term later this month.
White House counsel Al Gonzales said he was prepared to meet with Senate Democrats and others to discuss the "process and to consider suggestions you or others may have."
But in a letter to Democrats, he said it was the role of the president to decide whom to nominate. "The Senate will have an opportunity to assess the president's nominee and exercise its constitutional responsibility to vote up or down the nominee," Gonzales said.
"The Constitution is clear, the Constitution will be followed," Fleischer added.
The White House would not comment on whether Gonzales might be Bush's nominee for the next Supreme Court vacancy. "There's not even a vacancy," Fleischer said. "Unless and until there is a vacancy, this is idle chit chat."
Most of the speculation about possible retirements have focused on Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 78, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 73.
Though it is an open question if there will be any vacancies soon, interest groups on the political left and right have already begun campaigns to prepare for one or more.
Nope. How about if you show me where I said that, and then we'll discuss this further.
And what I am saying is that you wouldn't have to fight it in the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court would not accept the case. It is settled law that the Senate can make it's own rules, and can choose the method for amending those rules, and that the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over that process, barring a violation of the Constitution. So, before the Supreme Court would accept the case, a plaintiff with standing would have to make a prima facie case that the proposed rule would violate the Constitution in some way. Since the Constitution is sit on the method to be used in exercising the Senate's advise and consent duty, the only justiciable claim would have to involve race or sex discrimination, or the imposition of a religious test, etc.
Then why are there filibusters on two of his current nominees? What's to stop filibustering a SCOTUS nominee if they can't stop filibustering a lower Court nominee?
They have long acknowledged they had the power to stop these filibusters by using the nuclear option, so called because its use would destroy any appearance of comity and collegiality in the Senate. They have allowed the filibusters to continue to date for several reasons: first, to allow time to work on moderate and conservative Dems; second, to build a perception in the Hispanic community of the Dems as anti-Hispanic, using Univision and other Spanish language media outlets; and third, to build up a sufficient track record to justify the use of the nuclear option if it becomes necessary.
What is the nuclear option? As discussed on several threads here, it would involve either passing a change of the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, to exclude its use with regard to judicial nominees; or to have a Republican Senator raise a point of order regarding the use of a filibuster on judicial nominees, and have the President of the Senate (Cheney) rule that filibusters are out of order on judicial nominees. Such a ruling can then be upheld by a simple majority of those present and voting.
Currently, the procedure for Senate Rule XXII (the filibuster rule) requres a 2/3 majority of those present and voting to invoke cloture on a filibuster of a rule change, as opposed to 3/5 of the whole number of Senators to invoke cloture on a filibuster of a bill. So the first nuclear option would require the Senate to ignore the cloture requirement on the rule change entirely. Again, since these are internal Senate rules, if they are ignored by the Senate, no court has jurisdiction to interfere.
Assume you probably meant rabid, although I like the idea of Democrats being a fierce as rabbits better!
The only rules with regard to amending the rule are Rule V, which states that written notice must be provided one day before the rule change is debated; and Rule XII, Section 2, para. 2, which says that cloture to end debate on a proposed rule change requires 2/3 of senators present and voting. Barring a filibuster, changing a Senate rule only requires a majority of the senators present and voting.
No, using one possible nuclear option, they would simply ignore the filibuster attempt and vote anyway, passing the rule change with a simple majority. In other words, the chair would call for a vote without a unanimous consent request. That is why it is considered a nuclear option - it is power politics, pure and simple.
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.