Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hatch group may go ‘nuclear’ on judges: Plan would limit use of Rule XXII in Dem filibusters
The Hill ^ | 5/7/03 | Alexander Bolton and Geoff Earle

Posted on 05/07/2003 1:38:13 PM PDT by Jean S

Several senior Republican senators are seeking wider party backing for a bold plan that would break the Democrats’ filibuster of President Bush’s judicial nominees.

Their approach calls for employing a rarely used parliamentary tactic to overturn current Senate procedures.

Under the strategy envisioned by Senate Judiciary Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), among others, the Republicans would strip any Senate minority — currently the Democrats — of their ability to filibuster presidential nominees.

Approval by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (Tenn.), which is being sought, would all but assure that the plan would go forward.

Under the most likely scenario now under discussion, they would secure a ruling from the chair that Senate Rule XXII does not apply to executive submissions to the Senate — and that includes judicial nominees. Rule XXII provides for unlimited debate on all legislative issues that reach the floor unless three-fifths of the Senate calls a halt.

With such an approach, a favorable ruling from the chair on limiting the scope of Rule XXII could stand after only a simple majority approved it.

Anticipating these moves, Democrats have already asked the Senate parliamentarian to weigh in on the issue in their defense.

From the standpoint of the proponents, the appeal of this “silver-bullet” strategy is that it would quash the Democratic blockade without requiring 60 votes, the number needed by current rules to halt such delaying tactics, or 67 votes, the number needed to change a filibustered Senate rule.

One drawback of this proposed tactic is that it might destroy whatever is left of the working relationship between Democrats and Republicans. That is why some legislative experts liken the parliamentary tool to a legislative nuclear bomb.

Under the most likely scenario, the presiding officer of the Senate — perhaps Vice President Dick Cheney — would rule that a filibuster of presidential nominees is unprotected by Rule XXII.

Democrats would need 51 votes to overturn that ruling. In practical terms, that means they would need the help of two GOP defectors — three if Sen. Zell Miller (D-Ga.) votes with Republicans, as he often has.

Another alternative would be to change the rule through the Senate Rules Committee. But that process would entail extensive hearings and negotiations, and would be unlikely to attract Democratic support.

Democrats would view any change of Senate rules that circumscribed the rights of the minority party and was not approved by two-thirds of the chamber as an abuse of majority power.

However, with few exceptions, Senate Republicans view the filibuster of circuit court nominees, a tactic that until recently was rarely used, as an abuse of minority power.

Democrats are filibustering Bush’s nominations of Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, respectively. This has prompted an outcry from conservatives in Congress and around the country.

And Republicans on the Judiciary Committee expect Democrats soon to filibuster two more Bush nominees: Bill Pryor, nominated to the 11th Circuit Court, and Carolyn Kuhl, nominated to the 9th Circuit Court, said Margarita Tapia, spokeswoman for the panel.

However, what may be really at stake is the future makeup of the Supreme Court. The justices on the high tribunal have now served together for nearly a decade. Three of the nine justices are over 70 years old.

Although Senate Republican leaders have kept their parliamentary strategy close to the vest, Hatch offered an insight into it in during an interview Friday with The Hill.

Hatch said the Democratic filibuster is “violative of the Constitution” and “totally politicizing of the judicial selection process,” adding: “I know how to break it, and I will when the time comes.”

When asked how he would break the Democratic blockade, Hatch said: “You’ve got to deny Rule XXII on the executive calendar. I think you’ll see this in the not-too-distant future because the process is broken and it can’t continue like this.”

All regular Senate business—that is to say all public and private bills—is placed on the legislative calendar. Business sent to the Senate from the White House, such as treaties, executive branch nominees and judicial branch nominees, are placed on the executive calendar.

Hatch believes the Senate has a right to set its own rules — in this case the right to filibuster — for the legislative calendar but not for the executive calendar because that would entail imposing Senate rules on the executive branch and would violate the Constitution’s separation of powers.

“The executive branch and the judicial branch are co-equal [with the legislative branch],” Hatch said.

However, when pressed later about how specifically he would curtail Rule XXII, Hatch said: “Rule XXII should not apply to the executive calendar. I’m not going to go into the plan. There are a variety of methodologies we’re looking at.”

The current Senate stalemate over nominees is the culmination of the increasingly intense battle over the ideological makeup of the federal judiciary, and a sign, many GOP lawmakers say, that the judicial nominating process is “broken.”

“I think it’s a big problem,” said Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), the chairman of the Senate Rules Committee. “I think it’s unconstitutional, but I would defer to Senator Hatch about what is the best way to deal with the problem. I don’t think we can let this stand. We cannot let the Democrats set this [precedent] in perpetuity for them and for us, requiring 60 votes to confirm a judge.”

Lott said the Senate Republican leadership “has to make the final call, but there are a number of us who think we’ve got to take some further action—I think Ted Stevens [of Alaska], Orrin Hatch and a number of others.”

Lott said that there are ways to change how the Senate does business without enlisting the support of 67 senators, the number needed for a filibustered rule change, but he would not reveal any specific details: “I don’t want to get into it right now. I don’t want to reveal our hand because if we say what exactly we are entertaining, the Democrats will try to find a way to block it.”

One GOP leadership aide said Frist is open to the suggestions of Hatch and others but will not make any hasty decisions.

“We’re not going to rule out any rules changes,” said the aide. “Mr. Frist may do something later but he’s not going to tear up the rules book. He is going to proceed in a very slow and deliberative way.”

“We’ve learned in the past just because a member or aide says he knows the way to do something that may not be what the parliamentarian says,” the aide added.

However, when asked if he has solicited the parliamentarian about curbing Rule XXII, Hatch said: “I know what the parliamentarian is going to say.”

A Senate Democratic leadership aide warned against an attempt by Hatch to exempt judicial nominees from the Senate’s filibuster rules. “Rule XXII obviously does apply to nominees, no matter how he wants to parse it.”

If Republicans were able to force a change by jamming through a procedural ruling, “It would be a nuclear winter in the Senate,” said the aide. “This place would fall apart. It would be dire consequences if that happened, in my opinion.”

The aide said that Hatch doesn’t have the case he thinks he has to win a ruling of the chair, based on the Senate’s precedents, because Republicans have in effect already acknowledged the Democratic filibuster of Miguel Estrada.

“He’s got a precedent of five cloture votes on Estrada, so he doesn’t have a very good precedent,” said the aide.

The aide also pointed to other times when there have been filibusters and cloture votes on judicial nominees. He called “ludicrous” GOP claims that the ongoing Democratic filibusters of Estrada and Owen were unprecedented. Cloture was filed to end a filibuster against Abe Fortas’s elevation to chief justice of the Supreme Court. Cloture was also filed and invoked on Stephen Breyer when he was a federal appeals court nominee in 1980.

Those arguments aside, the aide conceded that it might be possible for Republicans to force a rules change by moving that Rule XXII does not apply to judicial nominees and then getting a favorable ruling from the chair.

Then the key question would be, “How would the chair rule, and how would the parliamentarian rule, and would the chair listen to his ruling?” said the aide. The chair would not necessarily have to hew to that advice – although the aide said it would be extraordinary to ignore the parliamentarian’s ruling.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: filibuster; judicialnominations
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-135 next last
To: JeanS
*yawn!* Wake me if this really happens.....zzzzzzzz.......
21 posted on 05/07/2003 1:53:47 PM PDT by ksen (HHD,FRM - Entmoot or bust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #22 Removed by Moderator

To: vollmond
It would NOT affect the filibuster rule on legislation. It just would not allow the Senate to hold up proceedings on executive nominations. If a majority of Senate wants to vote for a judge, they should be allowed to vote for him. The only downside is we won't be able to block a future Democratic President's federal judicial nominations but if we're entering a long era of conservative dominance by the time that happens the federal bench, including the U.S Supreme Court, will be solidly conservative. Its worth going for broke on this one.
23 posted on 05/07/2003 1:54:18 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
That was funny! Thanks
24 posted on 05/07/2003 1:54:23 PM PDT by axxmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
What filibuster? I have yet to see a filibuster.
25 posted on 05/07/2003 1:56:15 PM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
While a filibuster would seem to be more taxing on the side doing the talking, that isn't necessarily the case. The filibusterers need only one person in the Senate chamber at any one time, prattling away. The other side must make sure a quorum—a majority of all senators—is on hand, a constitutional requirement for the Senate to conduct business. If there's no quorum after a senator has demanded a quorum call, the Senate must adjourn, giving those leading the filibuster time to go home, sleep, and delay things even more.
26 posted on 05/07/2003 1:56:34 PM PDT by So Cal Rocket (Free Miguel and Priscilla!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Well, after the next (or next again) election, the Democrats will have a method to shut off Republican filibustering against Hillary's appointment of Bill as Chief Justice.
27 posted on 05/07/2003 1:56:44 PM PDT by Doctor Stochastic (Vegetabilisch = chaotisch is der Charakter der Modernen. - Friedrich Schlegel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
WHAT WORKING RELATIONSHIP?....the RAT BA$TARDS started this senate conflict, we'll end it....NUKE 'em...'rats never took any prisoners...Why sould we?...TO HELL WITH ANY TURDCOATS.
28 posted on 05/07/2003 1:56:58 PM PDT by skinkinthegrass (Just because your paranoid,doesn't mean they aren't out to get you. :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: JeanS
There's been lots of ideas tossed around about how to break this unconstitutional lock by the RATS.

In the mean time, I like the idea of President Bush making recess appointments of folks sure to drive the RATS crazy, such as Robert Bork, etc.

30 posted on 05/07/2003 1:57:09 PM PDT by upchuck (Contribute to "Republicans for Al Sharpton for President in 2004." Dial 1-800-SLAPTHADONKEY :)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
They will, but if there are seven conservative SCOTUS justices I don't think a Justice Bill can help a President Hillary swing the Supreme Court battleship around.
31 posted on 05/07/2003 1:58:52 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: snopercod
Don't count your Hatch before he chickens...

Wow... good one! Hope you are wrong, though. That really is a ROTFLMAO!

32 posted on 05/07/2003 2:00:35 PM PDT by Migraine (my grain is pretty straight today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: anniegetyourgun; Howlin; votelife
Hatch making a little noise..

I guess we need not count our Hatches before they chicken...... but maybe we'll see some pipping before long.
33 posted on 05/07/2003 2:01:55 PM PDT by deport (Beware of Idiots bearing gifts.... One maybe the FR Joke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: headsonpikes
The senate has long since gone past "getting along" and we've been watching it ever since Hillary Clinton took up and office and started waving her wand of evil over her "demoncrat associates"...They don't stand for American values, therefore, Republicans need to go ALL OUT to defend those same values before they are ripped out of our hands all together...
34 posted on 05/07/2003 2:05:13 PM PDT by princess leah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: dwilli
One drawback of this proposed tactic is that it might destroy whatever is left of the working relationship between Democrats and Republicans. That is why some legislative experts liken the parliamentary tool to a legislative nuclear bomb.

Is this the working relationship where the Republicans inevitably give up to Democratic pressure?

It this the working relationship where Republicans backbone material disintigrates?

Is this the working relationship where the Dems work with the Pubs AS LONG AS things go their way?

C'mon Republicans!! You know the Dems don't believe in working with you and will stab you in the back NO MATTER what you do!

They know you will not grow a set.

35 posted on 05/07/2003 2:05:45 PM PDT by technomage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
They've announced that the only remaining step is for Frist to give approval. At this point, it is inconcievable that Hatch and others would announce this publicly, only to back down later.

My guess is that we are at the "final warning" stage. Neither party wants to have the filibuster removed from judicial nominees, but the Republicans are not going to permit wholesale blocking of nominees. Somebody in the Senate is going to have to offer a way out of this mess, otherwise I believe the Republicans will proceed with evading the filibuster and voting approval on Estrada.

If you notice the examples cited (Fortas and Breyer), both took place in the last year of a Presidential Term (1968 and 1980, respectively). I think a reasonable Senate rule change would be to permit filibusters (i.e. 60-votes required), but only for one year after nomination. That means any nominees Dubya sends up in 2004 can be blocked by 41 Senators; if that is applied for this and all future Presidents, that would be fair IMHO.
36 posted on 05/07/2003 2:12:49 PM PDT by You Dirty Rats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative
I don't like this. It could have the effect of turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for the executive branch. They need to force real fillibusters. Preferably just before votes on issues the Dems hold dear.

-----------------

How would it do that? If a majority of senators opposed a nominee, that nominee could still be voted down. All this would do is require that an up or down vote is held, and will not allow a minority to kill a nomination that had majority support.

It would also not eliminate the legislative filibuster, as noted in the article above.

I'm not referring to just these judicial nominations. It sounds like they want to make all Executive track items not face the threat of filibuster. The world changes - there's a lot of things Clinton was unable to do even with a Democrat controlled House and Senate because of 43 obstinate Republican Senators. We were holding on for dear life, and I haven't forgotten.

I want the Republicans to make the Democrats hold a real fillibuster, with gavel-to-gavel coverage on C-SPAN2, so the world can see the Democrats reading from phone books just to avoid a vote.

I don't want the Republicans to make a heavy-handed move that could backfire, and burn us a few years from now. Does Chief Justice William J. Clinton sound good? Or Chief Justice Hillary R. Clinton? We need to opportunity to fillibuster those choices to death.

37 posted on 05/07/2003 2:15:11 PM PDT by vollmond (And I don't even do drugs!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
DO IT NOW!!!! The way to defeat the dems is by taking them on and sticking it to them. Sure they will cry no fair but they will think before they try to stick it to us again.
38 posted on 05/07/2003 2:15:21 PM PDT by TheRedSoxWinThePennant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: technomage
LMAO! If Republicans don't have balls to get judges confirmed the Democrats will know they don't have anything to fear from the majority party and they will trip them up every chance they can get. Its put up or shut up time now for the GOP.
39 posted on 05/07/2003 2:17:43 PM PDT by goldstategop ( In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: JeanS
Republicans as a whole can fight this through the media, yet I've not seen any representative or senator before the cameras lambasting the process the Democrats have chosen.

If republican representatives or senators were to continually hold press conferences, or call in media types to give statements about the tactic the Democrats are using, the next election might solve the problem by eliminating some of the blockers. For example, why aren't the republican representatives in South Dakota going ballistic over Daschele's methods? Why aren't the Florida republican representatives going to the airwaves complaining about Nelson and Graham blocking the Hispanic nominee?

There are public relation issues that can be exploited, and yet I don't see anything but whining.

40 posted on 05/07/2003 2:20:50 PM PDT by FLCowboy,
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-135 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson