Posted on 03/05/2005 7:01:29 PM PST by neverdem
The White House's insistence on choosing only far-right judicial nominees has already damaged the federal courts. Now it threatens to do grave harm to the Senate. If Republicans fulfill their threat to overturn the historic role of the filibuster in order to ram the Bush administration's nominees through, they will be inviting all-out warfare and perhaps an effective shutdown of Congress. The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. Republicans and Democrats should tone down their rhetoric, then sit down and negotiate.
President Bush likes to complain about the divisive atmosphere in Washington. But he has contributed to it mightily by choosing federal judges from the far right of the ideological spectrum. He started his second term with a particularly aggressive move: resubmitting seven nominees whom the Democrats blocked last year by filibuster.
The Senate has confirmed the vast majority of President Bush's choices. But Democrats have rightly balked at a handful. One of the seven renominated judges is William Myers, a former lobbyist for the mining and ranching industries who demonstrated at his hearing last week that he is an antienvironmental extremist who lacks the evenhandedness necessary to be a federal judge. Another is Janice Rogers Brown, who has disparaged the New Deal as "our socialist revolution."
To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. Republican leaders now claim that judicial nominees are entitled to an up-or-down vote. This is rank hypocrisy. When the tables were turned, Republicans filibustered President Bill Clinton's choice for surgeon general, forcing him to choose another. And Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, who now finds judicial filibusters so offensive, himself joined one against Richard Paez, a Clinton appeals court nominee.
Yet these very same Republicans are threatening to have Vice President Dick Cheney rule from the chair that a simple majority can confirm a judicial nominee rather than the 60 votes necessary to stop a filibuster. This is known as the "nuclear option" because in all likelihood it would blow up the Senate's operations. The Senate does much of its work by unanimous consent, which keeps things moving along and prevents ordinary day-to-day business from drowning in procedural votes. But if Republicans change the filibuster rules, Democrats could respond by ignoring the tradition of unanimous consent and making it difficult if not impossible to get anything done. Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has warned that "the Senate will be in turmoil and the Judiciary Committee will be hell."
Despite his party's Senate majority, however, Mr. Frist may not have the votes to go nuclear. A sizable number of Republicans - including John McCain, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, Lincoln Chafee and John Warner - could break away. For them, the value of confirming a few extreme nominees may be outweighed by the lasting damage to the Senate. Besides, majorities are temporary, and they may want to filibuster one day.
There is one way to avert a showdown. The White House should meet with Senate leaders of both parties and come up with a list of nominees who will not be filibustered. This means that Mr. Bush - like Presidents Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush before him - would agree to submit nominees from the broad mainstream of legal thought, with a commitment to judging cases, not promoting a political agenda.
The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade.
The hypocrisy of the NY Times would embarrass the people who work there.... if they had any shame to begin with.
I hate to confirm what the Times alluded to, but the pubbies denied up or down votes to Paez for four years and Berzon for two years until Trent Lott relented on Mar 9, 2000 with those Clinton nominees. They are hoisting us on our own petard, although some were quoted at the time saying that they would never do what they are doing now, by refusing to vote for cloture.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/R?r106:FLD001:S51345
Go down the page until you see a linked "Page: S1340"
Page: S1340
Judge Deserves Rousing Approval
Infamous Anniversary for Courts
The Paez and Berzon Votes
Senate GOP Drags Feet on Justices
Ending a Judicial Blockade
None of that contradicts the point that it takes a simple majority of Senate, now 51 votes, to confirm a judicial appointment.
John / Billybob
At that time (Paez and Berzon) did the New York Times berate the Democrats for puuting forward left-wing extremists?
When did the Times say any lefty was extreme? To them Stalin and Mao were only slightly left of center.
Read Hugh Hewitt's Article: "Byrd Droppings" at www.hughhewitt.com.
Byrd himself, when Majority Leader, spoke out FOR rule changes to benefit his party. It is in the Congressional Record for 1979, according to the article. Byrd further traced the history of rule changes, showing that such changes have been done since the inception of Congress. So he got his changes! Now, the shoe is on the other foot.
In other words, Minority Rule. Bush should have a meeting with them -- and tell the DemonRATS to go to Hell! It's time to force the issue. Get rid of the filibuster of judicial nominees and nominees for other positions. Up or down votes from now on.
if this isn't done, now, there may not be later.....the option of filibustering has been abused...this what you do when you discipline a child....take away the option. They are a MINORITY..get it???
yes we are...you eliminate the rule, you eliminate the practice...
the Republicans won't because they have the 'elderly' in the senate to consider...they could not stand the old=fashioned way...that is why they have this gentlemen's agreement....
yes, how many does it take to have a majority? Like 51, 55, 60? What is the difference between a majority and a minority?? What do these words mean????
"The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history."
This has nothing to do with Senate history. And .. this is not about a "Republican claim" .. we're talking about a Senate rule which subverts the Constitution - AND IT WAS THE DEMOCRATS WHO DID IT. A Senate rule does not TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION.
Now .. here come the repubs trying to change it back TO CONFORM TO THE CONSTITUTION and here is the NYT lying through their teeth about it.
But .. what else can you expect!
Oh and by the way, if the President's nominees really are extreme, nothing prevents the Senate from voting them down. So why don't the Democrats want an up or down vote in the Senate on these choices? The truth is quite simple, contrary to what the minority party and the NYT would have people believe. Its that the judicial nominess named by President Bush are precisely where most of the country is today. 51% of the American people deserve to be able to have a federal judiciary that reflects the guy for whom they voted. Its that simple.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Hmmmmm?? You're against the "nuclear option" but you want them to "end the practice of filabusters" ..??
But .. the "nuclear option" is the only THING WHICH WILL END THE FILABUSTERS.
A SENATE RULE DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION. The dems inserted a senate rule to allow for the filibuster of judicial nominees - THAT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL - I've read the paragraph in the Constitution - and filibusters are not allowed for judicial nominees.
The repubs are trying to change that rule BACK TO WHERE IT IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONSTITUTION, which requires only a simple majority, or 51 votes.
I'm not YELLING - I'm just trying to make some emphasis in the statements.
"promoting a political agenda"
LOL! According to the "projection technique" the dems just told us what they're doing.
You see, the projection technique is where you project upon your opponent - what you're actually doing. The dems have been using this for years. They still haven't figured out that when they make a statement about the repubs "promoting a political agenda" what they're really saying is that promoting an agenda is what they're doing. I find this facinating. They evidently think we're too stupid to figure it out.
"It's like we are dealing with complete morons"
Exactly .. and on purpose. I believe they know the truth - but they are willing to deceive to "promote a political agenda".
What the heck "damage" are they talking about ..?? And .. what evidence do they ever provide to substantiate their claims ..??
Disgusting people!
You and me both - I'm sick of this garbage. Bowing and scraping to this disgruntled minority is disgusting.
Exactly!!!
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.