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 White House's insistence on choosing only far-right judicial nominees has already damaged the federal courts."
The Source and the first sentence is enough to skip reading the rest of this trash.
Just a regurgitation of the senile rantings of DemonRate Senator and KKK recruiter Robert Byrd. I wonder if the NY Times has any interest in finding out:
1. How many crosses did KKK Byrd burn?
2. How many lynchings did KKK Byrd attend?
3. How many members did KKK Byrd recruit?
4. How many of KKK Byrd's recruits participated in lynchings and crossburnings?
well, you SHOULD care. there may be a day when the Rats have a Senate majority and Hillary Clinton is doing the appointing.
I think the whole filibuster system should be eliminated. It's not in the constitution, it's crap. This set of rats would change the rules in their favor in a heartbeat. In a heartbeat. I want to see rats and liberals in prison. I'm serious. I'm in a bad mood and I want to see the leftist traitors in prison. I'm not inciting violence, I just want the law enforced.
Would love to see the archived Times' articles about how lovely the filibuster was when Senate Democrats used it to delay Civil Rights legislation 40 years ago.
Just when you think you have read the lamest statement The Slimes could cough up they never fail to top it. First, a 'nominee' can never do damage because they are only a 'nominee.'
Now it threatens to do grave harm to the Senate.
Secondly, and apparently The Slimes don't have a copy of the Constitution on hand - but even even if they did they wouldn't understand it. The Senate doesn't work for the WH.
"Roll out the cots and make the Rats debate 24/7."
I second that!
Whatever.
67% of Americans don't care what the NYT's has to say, and even more don't bother to own a subsciption.
To our "esteemed" Republican Senators, stop being part of the 33% that give a damn about their opinion! You're not in the company of conservatives nor moderates. You're in bed with Liberals when you prop the NYT's up. They are the only ones that care what those elites have to say in this country and you aren't going to get those votes anyway!
Well, whaddaya know?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30F16FF345C0C7A8CDDAA0894D8404482&incamp=archive:search
EDITORIAL DESK | March 9, 2000, Thursday
Ending a Judicial Blockade
(NYT) Editorial 350 words
Late Edition - Final , Section A , Page 28 , Column 1
ABSTRACT - Editorial says Senate will hold confirmation votes that would end egregious stalling by Republicans that has blocked consideration of two worthy nominees for United States Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon; says Senate should then vote on 35 other pending judicial nominations; scores those in Senate who wage ideological warfare and procrastinate in hope that new president might submit other nominees
Judge Brown is a capable African-American lady who was confirmed on the California Supreme Court by 70% of the voters in that state. The slimes in arguing that 30% of the most extreme voters in one of the most liberal states in the nation are somehow mainstream.
Yes, and when THAT happens the Dems will show no hesitation in proceding with the "nuclear" argument. I choose not to worry about what is a foregone conclusion if they have power. If WE choose not to do this, it would be foolish to think the Dems would return that courtesy.
"I'd much prefer that the Senators get off their lazy ass, and end this practice of a Gentleman's Filibuster. Roll out the cots and make the Rats debate 24/7."
Agreed, or what's a filibuster for?
Your "whatever" evidences a disturbing outcome-oriented view of public affairs.
Live by the sword........die by the sword.....
See #32
HillaryCare would be the law of the land right now, if it weren't for the filibuster.
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.