A group of fourteen moderate senators from both parties reached agreement this evening on a compromise that will prevent the need for the "nuclear" option to be voted on in the Senate. The deal promises that all the participating members of the negotiating group will vote for cloture on the three most controversial of the filibustered judges (Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown), with no such pledge for two others (William Myers and Henry Saad). The compromise also contains a pledge that the Republicans will not pursue the "nuclear" option in the 109th congress while the Democrats pledge not to filibuster judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances". In essence both parties hold on to their major weapon with the Democrats still reserving the right to filibuster and Republicans still reserving the right to pursue the "nuclear" option in the future, just not in this congress.
While this compromise does allow for up or down votes on three of the president's most prominent judicial nominations, I'm afraid it is nothing but a short term stop-gap. I and my fellow Republicans have been stressing all along that every nominee deserves an up or down vote, and this agreement fails to insure that. Furthermore, Democrats still reserve the right to filibuster in "extraordinary circumstances", which leaves us right back where we started, for the Democrats have slandered every single one of these nominees as right-wing extremists far outside the mainstream of American public opinion. If they showed no hesitancy in labeling these nominees as extremists they certainly won't think twice about labeling any future nominee with the same view points as extremist as well, especially when the president sends a constitutionalist Supreme Court nominee to the Senate.
If there's an upside to this deal it is that Democrats will look increasingly duplicitous once they do come back and filibuster a future nominee. The minute they do so Republicans can immediately counter by asking them that if the current nominee is an extremist than why did they bargain and allow those other three nominees to receive up or down votes, nominees that they also labeled as extremists? Pointing this out will immediately destroy the facade of conscientious objection that the Democrats have been trying to sell to the American public. However calling the Democrats bluff in this matter is small compensation, and it is dwarfed by the fact that this deal will allow the Democrats to once again filibuster under the guise of conscientious objection.
Simply put, this deal essentially accomplishes nothing. Democrats can once again revert back to their tired obstructionist ways under the cover of "extraordinary circumstances", an excuse and a practice that this agreement now legitimizes. It will not be long, probably just as soon as a vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court, before Democratic filibusters once again plague the Senate and America's judicial system, and Senate Republicans will be forced to once again seek a means to insure that each judicial nominee receives an up or down vote.
UPDATE (3:16 P.M. 5/24/05): The Senate voted 81-18 today to invoke cloture on the Priscilla Owen nomination to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. What's striking about this vote is that so many Democrats who refused to invoke cloture on her yesterday on the grounds that she was an extremist turned around and did so today.
UPDATE (2:55 P.M. 5/25/05): The Senate confirmed Priscilla Owen to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals today 55-43. Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia and Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana were the only two Democrats to vote for the nomination while Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was the only Republican to vote no. Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska voted "present" .
"Democrats can once again revert back to their tired obstructionist ways under the cover of 'extraordinary circumstances', an excuse and a practice that this agreement now legitimizes."
ReplyDeleteOn Thursday morning, the Democrats walked into the Senate Chamber offering to confirm 4 of Bush's nominees right then and there. McConnell turned them down. Who's obstructionist? Frist sets the agenda, he could easily work through the judges that are less controversial and get the radicals later. After all, several Clinton nominees waited years with not even a hearing. But no, he invites the fight by putting Owen up. Who's obstructionist again?
News Flash: We're talking about 7 judges out of more than 200. How whiny do you want to be? You think you can have everything you want? Ask the American people how they feel about one party having complete control over who goes to the bench in this country and then tell me which party is out of the mainstream? You want to end minority rights over 7 judges who can't keep their politics out of the courtroom?
And "Slander?" My god, get a grip. They used THE WORDS OF THE JUDGES THEMSELVES. Janis Rogers Brown called the New Deal a "Socialist Revolution." That is almost a perfect example of "out of touch." Pricilla Owen couldn't explain why she was a member of The Federalist Society. That isn't slander, that's a statement of the facts.
You're usually a touch more reasonable than this, Geoff. This was clearly an attempted power grab ahead of a Supreme Court nomination. Let's not pretend that the filibustering of 7 judges was going to bring down the stability of the entire judicial system. No, there were more than twice the number of judicial "emergencies" during Clinton than there are now. And Pricilla Owen is going to fill a seat that 2 Clinton nominees never even got hearings for.
The "Up or down votes" argument is just a joke. No Republican has EVER voted no on a Bush nominee. That's not an up or down vote, that's a rubber stamp. If you want to melt the executive branch into the judicial branch, go start your own country. I'll stay here where the Constitution you so righteously defend mandates checks and balances.
Demagoguery gets you nowhere in this argument. And you wonder why no one approves of this Congress. We're all stunned by the whiny rhetoric and attacks on the middle class. But I guess we shouldn't be, any President foolish enough to call 51% a "mandate" is going to trip over that 49% minority on his way in the door.
I think this compromise will be a victory for us in the long run.
ReplyDeleteSen. Frist also offered the Democrats a compromise where every senator would get an hour on the floor to debate any judicial nominee and every nominee would get a hearing and a vote in committee. Cherry picking four nominees with the intent of only filibustering more nominees in the future is no compromise and McConnell was right to reject it.
ReplyDeleteIt's your side that has been slipping into demagoguery by labeling them as extremists, when in reality all they are is conservative. If they really were extremist than there is no way they would be confirmed on the floor and Senate Democrats know that.
When a floor vote is a rubber stamp, why would Democrats take a offer than guarantees a floor vote? That is just silly. And why not vote on the uncontroversial judges now? You watch C-SPAN, you saw Frist say that murderers and rapists were going to be out on the streets because of the Democrats' stance on these judges. As I said above, that is just pathetic rhetoric given the number of "emergencies" Republicans left open during Clinton. But indeed if Frist thinks that way, then merely filling the seats is important and putting 4 judges through in one day would have been quite an accomplishment. Frist was not interested in a compromise, he wanted the nuclear option.
ReplyDeleteYou mean to tell me that the other 200 approved Bush judges were all liberals? Give me a break. Many conservative judges have been confirmed. In fact, most Bush appointees are members of the Federalist Society. Unlike Owen, they have kept their politics out of the courtroom. All we are asking for is judges who show some measure of reason in their decisions. For the most part, that is what we've got. Ten judges couldn't demonstrate that ability, so they were held off the bench. But that is not good enough for James Dobson and the other wingnuts, who want evangelical conservative politics involved in court decisions.
I'll say it again, Democrats have used judges own words. Dick Durbin has been quoting from decisions and speeches by the judges themselves. In the case of Owen and Rogers-Brown, their own words paint them extremists, not Democrats. And if you read last Thursday's floor speech by Frist, it reeks of demagoguery. I haven't seen a Democrat call any one of these judges "out of control," as Tom Delay called the entire American Judiciary. I'm afraid the Republican party is doing quite fine by themselves in the demagoguery department.
This was an attempted power-grab ahead of an expected Bush supreme court nomination. Republicans want a rubber stamp for any politically-minded conservative Bush & Co. nominate to the high court. And Frist is making friends for an '08 run at the White House. I expected better of him than to be buddy buddy with the likes of James Dobson.
I don't think anyone on "my side" cares about a judge's political leaning. If they can't keep it out of the courtroom, they are a detriment to the American Democracy, and I don't want them on the federal bench, plain and simple.
ReplyDelete