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.
No they won't. The way filibustering works, the Rats would only have to keep one or two Senators around at any given moment, while the GOP would have to keep at least 50 Senators in the chamber at all times, 24/7.
More importantly, though, filibustering was never meant to be used on issues like judicial nominees. The tactic exists to force compromise on pending legislation, but there is no compromise to be had on judicial nominees; you can either approve them or not, those are the only choices. Once the Rats started using filibustering to block judicial nominees, they stepped well outside the lines of the "Gentlemens' Rules." The so-called "nuclear option" should be used by the GOP the moment any Democrat attempts to block a judicial nominee via a filibuster.
And I believe Leo Terrell resigned from the NAACP because of what they said of Janice Rogers Brown
That's like the Nazis surrounding Bastogne saying to the troops there, if you don't surrender immediately, you'll just be "inviting all-out warfare". Not our fault. It's all on you, etc.
I think Americans can hold out against the NY Times, and however many divisions of Dem.
How in the world can they write something like that ?
I really don't know .. I have read anything about it
Frist stated he has 51 votes not too long ago.
To have 51 he would have had to corral one or two of the more Liberal Reps, or obtained the support of one or two Democrats.
He could have been bluffing but Frist has never stated he had 51 votes before. I don't believe Frist's temperment is such he'd bluff the number he has in his corner. So, the question is who are the 50 and 51 vote. And what he had to promise to gain their support. It would also be interesting to note how firm that support is under fire, I suppose it would be dependant on the promise they recieved in return as to how solid that support is.
One area where I would rate the GOP as weak in terms of public relations is its national response to these charges from the far-left that Bush wants 'far-right, out-of-the-mainstream' judges.
Since talking points are the norm in Washington D.C., the GOP's talking heads should be ready at every chance to point out the following about the Democrat's definition of a 'mainstream' judge;
Americans oppose gay marriage, and civil unions in most states; yet the Dems demand judges who will impose it nationwide.
Americans oppose abortion on demand, favor bans on late-term abortions, and favor parental-notification; yet the Dems demand judges who make impossible even the most reasonable and popular restrictions on abortion.
Americans believe the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns; yet the Dems demand judges who deem the Second Amendment to only protect a worthless collective right.
Americans do not support having Courts ban public nativity scenes, or prayers before highschool football games; yet the Dems demand judges who hold the warped view that the Establishment Clause gives them the right to do just that, and who then do it.
Americans don't want the Constitution twisted so as to grant citizen-like status to illegal aliens; yet the Dems demand judges who see no distinction between citizens and legal residents versus illegal aliens.
Americans do not support racial preferences; yet the Dems demand judges who equate civil rights with racial preferences, and who think divesity justifies discrimination.
Americans support judges who look to the US Constitution for guidance; yet the Dems demand judges who feel it wise and acceptable to look to foreign laws and jurisprudence for guidance.
Americans want judges who will show restraint; yet the Dems demand judges who will legislate from the bench and impose things on the nation that can't be won in a fair democratic fight in Congress or most states, and cloak this blatant ideological activism in the Constitution. The Dems demand judges who 'interpret' the Constitution through a very narrow, elite, far-left point of view, and who have no regard for the fact that this is a nation of 50 individual states who should be free to set policy not Constitutionally reserved for the Federal Govt.
The GOP must do a better job of making the choice clear. They must give the public, as a counter to the Dem message of 'far-right' judges, a very distinct image in their minds of what types of judges the Dems prefer, and show that they are the ones who are in fact out of the mainstream.
Basically, the GOP should ask the questions; if you want judges who will act like kings, then support the Dems. If you want judges who will impose gay marriage, then support the Dems. If you want judges who will be overtly hostile to public displays of Christianity, then support the Dems.
I just find it incredulous that the GOP does not have such a neat and true response to the Dem chorus of 'out of the mainstream rightwing judges.'
The pubbies made Paez wait for four years for an up or down vote from a quick glance. Payback is a mofo, although some dems swore that they would permit up or down votes on the Senate floor if the shoe was on the other foot.
I don't know how the bent one ever got at pass as being a moderate. Just about all of his appointees were far left wingers.
I have found entire Times articles on the web with google after getting the abstract from the Times archive. That's what I was hoping for when I found this at thomas.loc.gov .
The reason that you hear the term so much now is that neoconservatives have basically carried the day when it comes to foreign policy (the more wars and foreign military interventions the better), and when it comes to big government (the bigger the better -- as long as neoconservatives are peopling the bureaucracies.)
"[The NYT blatantly shills for the obstructionist Democrats]"
Kudos to whomever added the above to the title of this thread.
Is that THE Meathead? ;)
Democrats shouldn't have tread on tradition, or we wouldn't be here talking about changing the rules.
It's not a technical filibuster. They are refusing to vote for a quorum, IIRC. See comment# 68. Paez waited four years, if I read the link there correctly. It was a speed read.
Bloggers can catch the factual errors about the present. And the poor reputation of the Times can question its projections of the future.
But the stupidest thing the Time can do is to lie about the past. History books can catch it up. For 200 years, a simple majority (51 votes as of now) has been the standard in the US Senate for confirmation of judges. The 60 vote standard is not ancient, it is very modern.
Perhaps the Times thinks its readers are snobs and will never read any other source. Maybe that benighted idea is true, but the Times is still a liar on this point. And since its editorial begins with a lie, its opinion isn't worth the paper it's printed on.
Congressman Billybob
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.
(And this is a bad thing?)
The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees.
(Uh... hello? Fifty-one votes ARE enough, according to that pesky Constitution.)
The New York publication arm of the DNC falls flat on its face with their dishonest finger-wagging.
From:GO NUCLEAR!
"As for the soon-to-be-outraged Democrats? Well, is there really any doubt that the party that invented "Borking" and has beaten the process down to the disgraceful low-point we now have would "go nuclear" if the shoes were on the other feet? Please.... OF COURSE they would."
Right. The article suggests it's the Republicans who are inviting the shutting down of Congress. In reality, it's the Democrats who are shutting down Congress in a roundabout way by obstructing every single Judicial appointee sent to the Senate for a "simple majority" vote. But, since the Democrats want to filibuster every appointee, it requires 60+ to override the filibuster. As I said, it is the Democrats who are stalling ("shutting down", if you will) Congress.
win some elections and you can nominate michael moore as a judge until then write editorials and cry
Look up any of those explanations. Once you understand how it works, if Senator Frist has the balls and the votes to bring it up, you will realize that your point about Hillarycare is totally off point.
Congressman Billybob
I loved Justice Kennedy's statement regarding the unconstitutionality of the death penalty for those under 18 years,...."we should take into consideration the worlds opinion regarding this ruling".....the worlds opinion....I wish these activists would point in the constitution that is required when they raise their hand and swear to protect and defend the constitution. They are making it up as they go along guided how they feel. It is disgusting they have no more regard for the constitution than that.
Eff the NYT
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.