Doing its Constitutional Duty
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.
"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."
This is unadulterated Bravo Siera. The so called "mainstream" are too far left of the majority opinion of the average U.S. citizen. A major correction is needed to swing to courts toward strict constructionism - no more compromises that have hurt the SCOTUS and lower courts.
bump!
And Cheney to break ties.
HillaryCare didn't even see the light of day in Congress. Even the Democrats knew it was a bad deal, and many of them voted against it. Although, you can bet enough Democrats would vote for the piece of garbage, because the general makeup of the Democrat party has since shifted further to the left. Especially in light of their militant gay agenda and other acts of treason, treachery, sedition, and various other forms of kook, wacko, Liberal nonsense.
Are you kidding me? This crap passes for news? Just more from the (liberal) media.
Exactly..
Posh.
WHat the leftist gobs in the senate are doing IS NOT A FILIBUSTER.
You will appreciate this my friend.
The NYT has been trying, for some weeks now, to GIVE it's papers away to students at our local university. Generally, they find yesterdays stack, unopened, in the trash dumpster the next morning.
He's called The Slickster for a reason. Kerry and Dean couldn't hide their abject Liberalism, and they lost. The Clinton's are more capable of hiding, masking, and camouflaging their true agenda, and therefore, appear to be moderates.
Actually, its the Constitution that claims that. Not that the Times actually would care.
Please get your comments to Karl Rove.
Is it me or does the New York Times sound like a parody of itself.
Sure they do- it's in the 5th floor men's restroom, in a dispenser next to the toilet located just below Maureen Dowd's phone number.
But far left judges, who look to the failing states of Europe to craft their rulings, are OK.
Yeah, the Surgeon General is as important as elevated-for-life judges. Whats the most important decision the Surgeon General has made in the last 10 years? To fight AIDS? What the heck do they *EVER* do for us that some other choice of Surgeons General would not do virtually the same?
The Times just makes me sick, ya know? Their idea of "the President should work with the senate" is "The President should just listen to what Harry Reid says". If Lord-of-the-dem's-Reid does not like a candidate, then that candidate should be removed from consdieration.
Yes, its nice that you won that Presidency there, George. But we stil have to do everything my way, with my people.
I find it really funny how you never hear how Reid is not "working with the President to come up with a mutually acceptable list" when they disagree about candidates. The dems are *ALWAYS* portrayed as right, the Repubs *ALWAYS* portrayed as wrong....even though the Repubs have a clear majority in the house, senate *AND* Presidency.
Exactly what is the Slimes referring to? Generally, the Slimes will take a kernel of a grain of half truth and distort it all out of actual meaning. What was their kernal of truth that they are alluding to? When do they think a majority not been enough for a judicial confirmation?
Well said in your #30. Well said.
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
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.