Posted on 11/15/2002 1:16:16 PM PST by Utah Girl
Liberal interests groups pressure Democrats to start a major fight.
On Capitol Hill, there are reports that Senate Democrats are engaged in an increasingly contentious fight among themselves that could shut down the Senate during its busy lame-duck session.
At issue is the nomination of Dennis Shedd to a seat on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Liberal senators like Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy have long opposed Shedd, accusing him of being "insensitive" to the rights of minorities. That opposition was enough to keep Shedd's nomination bottled up in the Senate Judiciary Committee for more than a year.
On the other side, Shedd has particularly strong support in some Republican circles because he was a long-time Senate staffer, serving as chief counsel of the Judiciary Committee when it was chaired by South Carolina Republican Strom Thurmond. Several Republicans have interpreted Democratic opposition to Shedd as a slap at the nearly 100-year-old Thurmond as he leaves the Senate.
Shedd was finally approved by the Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Although some had said that chairman Patrick Leahy would allow a vote on Shedd as a gesture of "goodwill," Democrats, including Leahy, used the meeting as an opportunity to attack Shedd before allowing the nomination to pass on a voice vote. Shedd survived because a single Democrat, Delaware's Joseph Biden, had pledged to support him.
After the committee meeting, representatives of the liberal interest groups People for the American Way, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Alliance for Justice, and NARAL all urged Democratic senators to continue the fight against Shedd in the full Senate. Wade Henderson, head of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, warned that "controversy will follow these nominations to the Senate floor."
Now, it appears that that is happening. There is word that several Democrats, including Kennedy, Leahy, and Michigan Sen. Carl Levin, are working to organize a filibuster that would prevent a full-Senate vote on the nomination. Such a move would be highly controversial, even among Democrats, because it could tie the Senate up in procedural knots at a time when lawmakers are racing to finish work on the Department of Homeland Security and other measures during the lame-duck session.
It is also an extraordinarily risky move politically. Some Democrats, apparently including Majority Leader Tom Daschle, are worried that a filibuster against Shedd could hurt the election prospects of Louisiana Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu, who faces a runoff election next month. Some Democrats believe that the party's opposition to Bush judicial nominees hurt Democratic candidates in Georgia, Missouri, and Texas, and they believe an anti-Shedd filibuster would add Louisiana to that list.
On the other hand, some key Democrats are said to be worried that a quick confirmation of Shedd would anger the NAACP and other African-American groups that strongly oppose the nomination. The party desperately needs those groups to help in get-out-the-vote efforts in Louisiana, and Democrats are loath to do anything that might alienate them at this crucial time.
At this moment, the situation is in flux, with heated negotiations going on on all sides of the issue. It is unclear how the dispute will be resolved, and insiders believe it might stretch into next week.
Ashcroft's wife teaches at Howard University and they said he was a racist Nazi, too.
What we should be watching for, however, are the extra 8 or 9 senators who we will need to get judges approved since the Dems are just going to be Daschle-led opppositionists. The people we need to stroke are (1)Miller, (2)Breaux, (3)Hollings (who, I think, in this case is a personal friend of Shedd), and who else?
Ask Strom Thurmond. He knows all about rules and customs and how the Dems have such respect for both.
I know of no reason why a Senate confirmation vote would not be subject to a filibuster. And recent writing, including this very article, suggests that the RATs are now giving serious consideration to filibustering judicial appointments.
If they do, I hope Bush will at long last be willing to make recess appointments to the bench.
A FYI, y'all.
...more *grist* for ye ol' mill. ;^)
Yes, IF the Republicans are very, very smart.
I believe that any Senator who is given the speaker's podium can get up and talk as long as he likes- this is where the filibuster originates. It doesn't have to be planned either. Strom Thurmond had assured his colleagues that he was only going to get up and talk for a few minutes when he launched into his record breaker- what was it?- 28 hours or something like that. If a group can't raise the votes to stop the filibuster- theoretically that Senator (or procession of Senators) could talk till the end of time. Nothing else could be done in the interim, if I'm not mistaken because in order to move to a vote on any given issue a Senator has to have the podium.
Interesting too- filibuster comes from the word "filibusteros" which were pirates of Portugese and Spanish extraction who would kidnap people and hold them for ransom for incredibly long lengths of time.
I believe that the RATs were wise in permitting the two Bush judicial nominees to get out of committee. I believe that the failure of the RATs to permit a vote on Bush's judicial nominees already hurt Landrieu in Louisiana, and a filibuster at this time would most certainly make it even worse for Mary.
Regardless, I'm now quite convinced that you're right, and I'm also convinced that the Democrats are no longer constrained by "unwritten rules." In fact, written rules don't mean anything to them anymore, as shown by the NJ Senate race.
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.