And the blogger's keyboard is mightier than the pen.
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.
thank you for explaining that. I knew some of it but not all. I too wish the repub. would stop playing such nice guys. They always get the shaft when they do. The dems turn around and cheat and steal to get their own way.
I'm not familiar with Slate's worldview. I am familiar Kaus, probably because he was linked by someone at NRO or Reason as a reference. Kaus' link happened to be the first usable result at Google.
Regardless, my point is that pubbies did the same thing to at least two of Clinton's nominees, Paez and Berzon, for about four and two years, respectively, by denying to vote for cloture and keeping debate open. It's not a filibuster.
I am hardly agree with what the dems are doing, but anyone who says that what the dems are doing is unprecedented is either ignorant or full of BS.
I hardly agree with what the dems are doing, but anyone who says that what the dems are doing is unprecedented is either ignorant or full of BS.
And personal attacks of the type you put up as "debate" makes me question your motives.
Your "ignorance and BS" be on your head, sir.
Your "ignorance and BS" be on your head, sir.
It wasn't a personal attack, wasn't intended as an insult nor was it directed to you. I have read the word "unprecedented" in numerous articles. Freeper ambrose prompted me to verify that pubbies used this tactic before. It doesn't make pubbies look good, squealing like stuck pigs, over a parliamentary tactic they used against the bent one at least twice, if not more.
I believe we should hope the dems keep this up. In 2006, Bush should campaign against dem incumbent senators in "red" states making the point that the incumbent senators wouldn't grant a vote for these judicial nominees who believe in the constitution as it was originally intended, and not in making law from the bench as almost all dem nominees wind up doing.
EXECUTIVE SESSION -- (Senate - March 09, 2000)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--snip--
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the RECORD several editorials supporting Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
[From the Los Angeles Times, Feb. 6, 2000]
Judge Deserves Rousing Approval
Perhaps this week the full Senate will finally take up the nomination of Judge Richard Paez to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. With a decisive vote to confirm Paez, the Senate can redeem itself after its disgraceful treatment of this worthy jurist.
--snip--
[From the Los Angeles Times, Jan. 20, 2000]
Infamous Anniversary for Courts
Next Tuesday, four long years will have passed since President Clinton first nominated U.S. District Judge Richard A. Paez to a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. It's a sorry moment.
--snip--
[From the Washington Post, March 3, 2000]
The Paez and Berzon Votes
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott has indicated that the Senate will finally hold up-or-down votes on judicial nominees Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon by March 15. Judge Paez has waited four years for the Senate to consider his nomination, and Ms. Berzon has waited two. Both nominees to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are well qualified. It is time both were confirmed.
Since virtually EVERY Freeper is so rightfully disgusted by the constant leftwing bias of the NYT, the book "Journalistic Fraud", by Bob Kohn, should be required reading by EVERY Freeper! Read it folks, and you will see exactly HOW the NYT editors and writers have developed a leftist propaganda system designed to surreptitiously spread their bias thru other media outlets across the nation, like a cancer, to a gullible public. It's a fascinating read by a lawyer who literally dissects their technique and exposes it with painful clarity. Rushy
Slam the Dems. Force them to reject. Force the RINO's to expose themselves and then use their votes against them in the re-election.
NYT Translation: Leftist be alarmed, the Republicans are in danger of growing a spine.
(free at last, freeeeee at last.)
Thanks for the ping!
Media bias bump.
And that's a bad thing?
In addition to being historic, what the NYTimes (deliberately) fails to mention is that when the GOP obstructed Clinton's nominees, there were NOT 51 votes to confirm. While as a general principle everyone should get an up or down vote (make the Senators go on record against a nominee), it was a completely different situation. HERE we have a majority of Senators saying they'll support.
Make em (the Democrats) stand in the Senate and talk till they drop dead, maybe KKK BYRD will collapse on the Senate floor.
"nuclear option"
They can't even spell right at the NYT. it's
"NUCULER option"!
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.