Posted on 03/19/2005 10:26:40 PM PST by neverdem
With Republicans inclined to change Senate rules to make filibusters of judicial nominees impossible, Democrats have recklessly given Republicans an additional incentive to do so. It is a redundant incentive, because Republicans think -- mistakenly -- that they have sufficient constitutional reasons for doing so.
Today 60 Senate votes are required to end a filibuster. There are 55 Republican senators but not five Democrats who will join them. Republicans may seek a ruling from the chair -- Vice President Cheney presiding -- that filibustering judicial nominees is impermissible, a ruling that a simple majority of senators could enforce.
Democrats say they would retaliate by bringing the Senate to a virtual halt -- easily done within Senate rules. Republicans rejoice that such obstructionism would injure the Democrats. But conservatives would come to rue the injury done to their cause by the rule change and by their reasoning to justify it.
Some conservatives call filibusters of judicial nominations unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers by preventing the president from doing his constitutional duty of staffing the judiciary. But the Senate has the constitutional role of completing the staffing process that the president initiates.
Some conservatives say the Constitution's framers "knew what supermajorities they wanted" -- the Constitution requires various supermajorities, for ratifying treaties, impeachment convictions, etc.; therefore, other supermajority rules are unconstitutional. But it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted. Besides, the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."
Some conservatives say there is a "constitutional right" to have an up-or-down Senate vote on nominees. But in whom does this right inhere? The nominees? The president? This is a perverse contention coming from conservatives eager to confirm judges who will stop the promiscuous...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
He assumes that the Dems wouldn't just invoke the same nuclear option if they had the Presidency and a majority in the Senate. They have no honor.
Do you know if it's too late to rewrite the rules of the Senate to require an actual filibuster (Mr. Smith style) in lieu of the lame procedural filibuster currently employed? I would have no objection to a real filibuster; at least 5 Dems would vote for cloture after listening to Shrillary read from a phone book.
And if the constitutional option is invoked, I don't see the Dems plot to shut down the Senate lasting for very long. After a few days of doing nothing, I see a few of the reasonable Dems like Salazar and Lieberman and maybe some of their brethren, splitting off from the bloc. The Dems aren't a monolithic party and can't act as such for extended periods of time.
This is really the point. Those Republican hand-wringers moaning about losing the same prerogative when the Dems "inevitably" return to power are (like G. F. Will) living in a dream world. The Bork and Thomas nominations were scorched earth actions instigated by Democrats. If they're (God forbid) ever restored to majority status, the veneration for dubious Senatorial traditions will be mown down like dry grass in the withering blaze of the Dems' next "High Tech Lynching."
WE DON'T NEED 5 MORE SENATE SEATS.
The Consitution DOES NOT REQUIRE a supermajority or 60 votes to confirm judicial nominees.
It's the democrats WHO CHANGED THE SENATE RULE - but a SENATE RULE DOES NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION.
Yes .. I'm yelling! When are people going to get this truth. The Constitution clearly states there are only 7 items which require a supermajority AND CONFIRMING JUDGES IS NOT - I REPEAT - IS NOT - ONE OF THEM.
It's the democrats who subverted the Constitution and broke 200 years of "advise and consent" and turned it into a requirement for 60 votes.
Even those nominees who got a floor vote but didn't get the 60 votes - HAVE ALL EXCEEDED THE 51 REQUIRED TO CONFIRM THE NOMINEE - so we have 2-3 of those nominees that have actually been confirmed but the dems would not allow it because of their stinking demand for 60 votes.
Sooooo .. here we are trying to get the nominees through again. We will do it this time - and because of this gross abuse of power by the democrats, plus their lack of concern for the LIFE of Terri - they are going to face a terrible defeat in 2006.
First, he destroys the whole premise of his own argument:
Besides, the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."
Then he constructs a straw man:
Some conservatives say there is a "constitutional right" to have an up-or-down Senate vote on nominees.
"Some conservatives"? No. Many conservatives say simply that the Constitution's "advise and consent" provision has been turned on its head by the Democrats with their wanton, unprecedented use of filibusters of TEN judicial nominees, I don't recall any conservatives claiming that an up-or-down vote was a "constitutional right". George then goes on to claim that conservatives would "rue the day" they changed the rule because, well, what if the shoes were on the other feet?
What planet is this guy on?
(The following is from: GO NUCLEAR!)
During the Robert Bork confirmation hearings the Democrats devised and unveiled the smear tactic now known colloquially as "Borking". Over the next fifteen years or so, the Democrats fine-tuned and expanded this "art of the smear". At one point they conducted what was for all intents and purposes an inquisition of Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas. Thomas himself referred to his "Borking" by the Democrats as a "high-tech lynching". Indeed it was. Fortunately, the Democrats' attempt to destroy Thomas failed and he was ultimately confirmed. It was also fortunate that the Democrats had not yet "progressed" to where they are today.
Fast forward a few years and today we see that the Democrats are filibustering any Republican nominee who appears to take the United States Constitution seriously. And they are doing so routinely!
* * * * * * *
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 that we now have would "go nuclear" if the shoes were on the other feet? Please.... OF COURSE they would.
Is there really any doubt what the Democrats would do if the shoes were on the other feet?
And you assume it would ever get to that point. The republicans in the Senate haven't the cojones to filibuster a Ruth Bader-Ginsberg. So the change in the rule is all in our favor.
What an idiot Will is on this one:
1. Continuous debate has never been used in 200+ years against judicial appointments until now.
2. The GOP is unlikely to ever use that in the future if they become the minority.
3. The clear solution then is to BY RULE return to the 200+ year tradition of the Senate. [Might I add a real conservative would favor a return to the tradition of the Senate in such matters.]
So this is really a no lose situation for the GOP in the Senate. By rule they will return to the tradition of the Senate that they would not in the future go away from anyway.
I emailed my Dem Senator, Evan Bayh, this evening urging him to vote and not filibuster. I really don't expect him to agree.
Sometimes it would be hard to tell any difference.
On this issues, I reserve my constitutional right to tell George Will to go to hell!
When it comes to judicial nominations and filibusters, George Will should just stick to Baseball.
A supermajority is not required to confirm a judge.
It is required, by rule, to call the question.
No, it's not too late-as long as you have 67 votes to do so.
You might look in Senate Rule XIX (Floor debate) & then Rule XXII (Closure).
The USC gives each house of Congress the right to "determine the Rules of its Proceedings."
The first Filibuster was in 1917.
And neither does the Senate.
It merely requires 60 votes to call the question.
Yeah, George really struck out with this column.
Even when they "shut down" the government, it still manages to spend over $1 billion a day. But the Democrats have no actual power to do that since they haven't a majority in either house of Congress.
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.