Senate Democrats get final word, and declare victory, in fight over judges

Boston Globe ^ | 11/15/2003 | Jim Abrams

[RJCogburn]

After 40 hours of nonstop talking organized by Republicans to protest filibusters on judicial nominees, Senate Democrats added two more names yesterday to the list of judges they have stalled successfully.

Democrats declared the longest uninterrupted Senate debate in 15 years a victory for their side. Republicans said the Democrats' methods could come back to haunt them.

[RJCogburn]

Sad to say, the dems are correct so far as victory. I think this whole exercise made the Repubs look silly.

[Dutch Boy]

With any luck this is the first volley. I just read in another FR post about dem memos that sounded very damning. Things like not wanting Estrada soley because he was latino. If these get to the media via the correct channels the dems could be carrying the messy end of a turd poker. What a revelation just before an election - written proof that the dems are racists.

[Rokke]

This isn't at all a dig at you, but I'm curious to know what options they have. They are under fire from conservatives for not aggressively supporting the President's nominees, but I'm not sure what other tools they have to force the names to the full Senate. They are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do they have any other options to force the nominees to the floor?

[RJCogburn]

Wishful thinking I am sad to say.

[RJCogburn]

I don't think they have options. The thing is a mess.

I just think this prolonged "debate" they staged looked silly. I think they would have better off not doing it at all OR doing it without end........

[Dutch Boy]

You may be right. The current crowd so often will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Consort]

It appeared that the Dems were better prepared for the GOP marathon than the GOP was. The same thing will likely happen if the GOP goes "nuclear". In general, conservatives communicate very well to the choir, but not very well to the common voter, IMO.

[Cboldt]

This issue is not going to go away. The assertion that the DEMs have won, period, is wrong. Have the DEMs succeeded in delaying some judicial appointments? Yes. To that extent they won. But that does not compare with total victory. Patience, all, patience.

[RJCogburn]

Patience, all, patience.

Been patient for the last 40 years or so.

Well trained since I'm a RedSox fan, but......

[auboy]

Charles Schumer would be washed away and drowned if he ever got close enough to the "mainstream" to hear it.

IMHO, I don't think this 39-40 hours was a waste. Some of the "mainstream" Charles Schumer refers to are moving to the deeper, clearer side of the "creek".

The liberals in the Senate have raised the bar and changed the rules. November 2004, there's a day of reckoning awaiting some of them.

[Cboldt]

Do they have any other options to force the nominees to the floor?

Some options:

• Parliamentary point of order that supermajority for up-or-down advice and consent is unconstitutional (the so-called "nuclear" option)
• S-138, a bill to change the rules of the Senate, whereby the threshold for cloture, for advice and consent, is lowered in successive votes until a simple majority suffices
• Change the Senate rules at the start of the next Congress
• Take a case to SCOTUS (stronger if the President joins, but politically dangerous)
• Provoke public pressure to prevail on the sensibilities of the recalitrant DEM Senators

[Rokke]

Thanks for the list of options. I would suggest that anything having to do with "changing the rules" would imply that the democrats are currently following the rules, and that the only way to get things done is to pull a New Jersey, and change the rules midstream. Going to the Supreme Court would dredge up memories of the 2000 Supreme Court decision, and I'm not sure that would be very constructive. I believe their marathon debate was their first attempt to provoke public pressure, but it is obviously a challange to force a clear message through a thick media wall. And that leaves the "nuclear" option, which it appears is where they are headed. I would say they are taking the only course they have. Hopefully, after 2004 we will have 60 Republican Senators, and no longer have to worry about this.

[Luke21]

The media is communist. They won't lift a finger to help us.

[Spok]

I hope this is all being carefully orchestrated to set the stage for recess appointments. If GWB does it, he knows he'll be savaged by the media, which will never mention that Clinton did the same thing. The Republican leadership knows that the filibuster could never be used against the Demoocrats without the media whipping up public anger over an "obstructionist Senate". It would be like the budget stalemate during the Clinton presidency that was all blamed, successfully, on the Republicans. It's not a level playing field and the public's memory is short. The double standard is a given that passes unnoticed.

[PokeyJoe]

I agree. I wish someone would have thrown the question to the chair, and just be done with it.

Let the democrats stink up the joint before the 2004 elections, and during war!

[Ladytotheright]

The DEMS always have been racist. They continually supported the Southern Dems just so they could be the majority part. They turned toward Black-bating after the blacks got the vote down there---not before. They are use minorities to get their vote.

[KriegerGeist]

"They are under fire from conservatives for not aggressively supporting the President's nominees, but I'm not sure what other tools they have to force the names to the full Senate. They are kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place. Do they have any other options to force the nominees to the floor?"

You are correct. I am no Congressional scholar nor expert, but from what I have been hearing (from Senator Rick Santorum) and reading in various places, that Senator Bill Frist and the 51 Republicans need to vote to change the Senate or "parlimentary rules". Howerver, not all 51 Republican Senators are on board to change the rules. In fact, according to Senator Santorum, there are about 12 or so who are not on board for the change.... He would not give Sean Hannity the names on the air...[no leaked memo here. Yet!]

I could make some guesses as to who these Senators are: Lincoln Chaffee, Olyimia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain and Arlen Specter for starters...

If Bill Frist does not have the full Republican support, then the rules stay as they are and the liberal Democraps keep on doing what they are doing and getting away with it.

The greater problem is that the hope of many Conservatives is for a pick up of many more Republican seats in the Senate next November. It would be nice to pick up half a dozen seats, but that won't make the difference if you still have the above listed liberal Republican RINOS and several more not named still in their seats. They are as good as having liberal Democrats in those seats.

It's not a "lose-lose" situation...it's just not a "win-win" one either. Six steps foward. Remain in place.

[freeangel]

It wouldn't matter in the least. They are still the minority that has the power to keep these justices off the bench. The average American(voter) doesn't even keep up with what is going on. They have only a vague idea that is being fed to them by the usual liberal media sources. Fox talked to several "people" on the street when the filibuster was going on and the average person had not heard about it or coined it a "talkfest" by "those republicans." Even if they lose 3 more Senate seats, they will still be the minority in power.

[freekitty]

Who says their will be a Democrat President?

I resent this; because it looks like the Republicans are giving in?

[InterceptPoint]

It seems to me that it is time to get on with the recess appointment plan. We are clearly heading for a long term stalemate on the appointment of judges to all the high level federal positions including the Supreme Court. The Dems have established the precedent and until either the Dems or the Pubbies get a 60 vote majority in the Senate there is nothing that will change this. The chances that this will happen in 2004 are maybe 1 in 10 for the Republicans and 1 in a 1000 for the Democrats.

Look at what is certain to happen with the next Supreme Court vacancy - nothing. The Dems will not allow it and so a recess appointment of the next Supreme Court Justice is virtually guaranteed. Bush might as well get on with it with the Circuit Court and other nominees. In the years ahead it will just be business as usual so we might as well start now.

It isn't a given, of course, that the current list of nominees will grab the recess appointment ring but you bet they will line up for any version of a Supreme Court nomination. Even if some or most decline, I suspect that there are plenty of good conservative candidates out there that will fill the bill.