perfidy

Janice Rogers Brown got 79% of the vote for cCalifornia Supreme Court in San Francisco. Kerry only got 83. That makes her an unacceptable right wing extremist? All of these nominees were ranked qualified or higher by the ABA.

Your favorite PA senator today said that if the Democrats were really serious about their objections to these people, making a deal to let a certain number through - and the Republicans could pick which ones - is unconscionable.

This is politics, partisan style. There is nothing inherently wrong with these nominees, accept that they are conservative. The Democrats *are* being obstructionist.

The President should be able to nominate who he wants. If they are voted down, *then* he should pick new ones. It is all well and good that minority rights should be protected, but it is also true that in a majoritarian democracy, if you have a majority you should be able to use it. Not to pass laws that abrogate inalienable rights or that violate the constitution, but certainly to get some judges on the bench.

Checks and balances are designed into our system to prevent one branch of government from becoming to powerful. The checks and balances are not there to even out political parties. If the President can convince 50% + 1 of the senate to go along with his scheme, he gets it. The fact that a minority party is shut out of the deal (for the time being, until they win more elections) is totally irrelevant.

And remember, a lot of the Dems screaming loudest about the sanctity of the filibuster now were for abolishing it altogether ten years ago. (To be fair, the Republicans were surely for it then.) This is as purely partisan a battle as you'll see. However, I think that on balance, The Republicans now and the Democrats ten years ago had the right idea.

I don't think the Dems are being obstructionist. They passed something like 90% of the original nominees. If they passed only 10, then maybe you could make that argument. These resubmissions are the 10% that didn't pass the first time around, and probably should never get passed.

It seems that the President and the majority party of the Senate doesn't understand 'Checks and Balances'. This is your check, cash it, keep it, whatever. The President should try backing down and picking new nominees. The minority party is going to use whatever they can to stop these nominees, because that's what procedural rules are for. I dislike GOP filibustering too, but I respect the rules designed to preserve the rights of the minority.

Also, our system is designed to work on majority rule, while protecting the rights of the minority. But that applies to the population as a whole, and a bit less so to the minority in the Senate. Their "rights" aren't being trampled. The constitution says that nominees must be confirmed by the senate, by a simple majority. So, if there are 51 senators ready to vote yes, then using a parliamentary loophole to prevent a vote that you are going to lose is not exactly the high water mark of principled statesmanship.

The filibuster itself has a bit of a checkered past. Southern democrats used it in an attempt to forestall civil rights legislation, and so on. We've changed the rules on filibusters before, eliminating its use in some cases, and also to reduce the number of votes to shut one down.

Changing the rule now (even in a closely divided senate) doesn't bother me, especially since as I mentioned above I am prefectly willing to accept the consequences if the Dems eventually regain a majority.

Some of the overheated rhetoric from the mouths of Democratic senators has been really, well, overheated. The nominees have been called extremists, neanderthals (Ted Kennedy), and worse. The Republicans considering the 'nuclear option' have been called fascists, evil, stupid, and accused of plotting the installation of a totalitarian state. This isn't moveon.org, but Democratic senators. It ain't all that, and I think that in all fairness, if the President nominates someone, they deserve a vote. That simple.

As far as reappointments go, sure yes he tried before, and they were blocked by the same topics that led to this crisis. So he appointed them again. For a president to say, "these are the people I want," is really not so unreasonable - especially since they weren't voted down, but just stalled.

I saw Tom Harkin on the news last night saying that changing the senate rules will result in immediate Ragnarok, and other ridiculous things. It surely isn't that significant.

What I am saying is that the specific effect of these changes (if passed) would be to restore the status quo ante - where the minority party didn't, as a matter of regular practice, obstruct the process of confirming nominees. Clarence Thomas was voted in by what, 52 votes? That wouldn't happen the way things are now. So in that sense, it isn't a great big change.

From my point of view, if the pres nominates someone, and there is a majority of senators ready to vote "yes," then he should be confirmed. Using the filibuster to block every nominee isn't fair, nice, or good for the future of the senate.

Yes, the big fight will be over Supreme Court nominees. And that might have been an appropriate place to use a filibuster, if the Dems really hated one of the nominees. By mis- and over-using the tool, they face the prospect of losing that tool altogether. Which is strategically and tactically foolish.

But in the end, Bush would still likely have gotten the Supreme Court Justices he wanted, because he has a majority in the senate and for a big fight like that, the Dems couldn't have maintained an obstructionist strategy for ever - public pressure would have eventually led to a floor vote. With these minor nominees, very few people care.

So I still don't think it makes a huge difference, and the Dems are still shooting themselves in the foot.

A couple of thoughts -- first, the judges in question (20 of them, IIRC) are actually resubmissions. At least one of the judges in question (William H. Pryor) was given a temporary appointment as a recess appointment, and so didn't have to receive any sort of check/scrutiny at all (though to get the position permanently, he will need confirmation), and a second judge (Pickering, Jr.) will retire after he's finished his recess appointment.

I'm trying to find out the history of reappointing judicial nominees, to see how common it is, but my quick checks during lunch haven't turned anything up outside of the current brouhaha. Barring any major revelations there, though, this whole flap looks to be nothing more then the Bush administration saying "These are the people that are going to serve on the judiciary, come hell or high water," and simply looking to find the big enough hammer to drive these nominations home.

Lastly, at http://www.acsblog.org/judicial-nominations-578-president-bush-to-renom…, the comment is made (by Harry Reid, so this should be taken with a grain or three of salt) that the current state of affairs isn't as bad as they're making it out to be.

"It used to be 67, now it’s 60, the new rule would be fifty. And it would only apply to judicial nominations. Not exactly a huge change, really"

But that IS a huge change. It's the difference between 3/5ths and half, and in a Senate that's so closely divided, that really does mean everything.

I hate to say it, but I think you're arguing both ways, B. One one hand, you're saying "What's the big deal, these changes," and on the other hand you admit that the real story is the coming fight over the Supreme Court, which most assuredly is (and you'd agree) a big deal.

Johno,

Except insofar as that action would reduce the already lamentable lack of amity in the senate, I don't think it would necessarily result in tit-for0tat changes - for the simple reason that whichever party is in power would find the new rule to its advantage. And since, as I already said, I don't find that 'advantage' a bad thing, that's fine.

Mapgirl,

This is not removing debate from the senate. The senators can debate all they want, and Frist offered a hundred hours of debate to the Dems per nominee. What it removes is the ability of the minority to completely gum up the works to prevent the vote which the majority would in any event win.

The filibuster is a kind of loophole - one that didn't exist in the house rules, or in any other parliament that I am aware of. It became enshrined by tradition, but basically (as I understand it) is that if you ahve the floor of the senate, you don't have to give it up. Which allows marathon telephone book readings to prevent debate or votes. The rule of cloture allowed a certain number of senators to vote to tell the offending senator to stfu. It used to be 67, now it's 60, the new rule would be fifty. And it would only apply to judicial nominations. Not exactly a huge change, really; and one that would restore the status quo ante, which was that the minority would allow the majority to vote on nominees.

I don't know how much either of you have done true parliamentary debate, but this proposal makes me extremely nervous. The purpose of rules of debate is to protect the minority so they are heard during debate. Take away this ability and you quash debate. Might as well not have Congress at all.

As a parliamentarian, fucking around with the rules of debate make me exceedingly nervous. The point of the rules is to have a debate. Yes, I know that filibustering is stopping debate completely, but I've never quite understood how a person could get that much time from the chair and not yield the floor. There seems be something wrong with the procedural rules that allow open time debate. Can someone explain to me exactly how you get open time debate? The Chair is an idiot if he doesn't know how to limit time to the speaker. After which your Sargeant at arms should step in and forcibly remove the speaker from the podium. Sounds kind of crazy, but really the Chair appears to be at fault.

How on earth does this happen? Does it depend on the chair being in the minority party? Because that's certainly not the case here. Specter is my hometown Senator and he's in the majority party and leader of the Senate Judiciary committee.

Also... on NPR this AM I heard some commentary to the effect that the Democrats are playing a high-stakes game of chicken. Y'see, although Senate rules aren't part of the Constitution, it seems that even in the darkest days of yore (Bleeding Kansas/the caning of Sumner, Congressional Reconstruction, Civil Rights era) the majority party didn't have the stones to change the rules in the way the Reps are now doing. The upshot is that once they do this, the *new* precendent will be that Calvinball rules now apply in the Senate. I question the Democrats' timing, but I shudder to think of what could happen if the Senate rules are made to be like procedural silly putty. Every new Congress - every switch of majority - would then be in a position to wreak vengeance. Perhaps with a revenge pinata. Then where would we be?

I'll *tell* you. Argentina.

"But what really confuses the crap out of me is why the Democrats are doing this now."

"Unless I’m really missing something, that is the most boneheaded political strategy I’ve ever heard of. "

You're right... it's a test for the Supreme Court battles coming up. But it's a larger-scale gutcheck for each camp. How many Republicans *really* have the stomach for this, and can the waverers be counted on by the leadership? If not, the Rep leadership can't count on rock-solid support for the next fights. It's also a proxy war by each side for upcoming political fights over Social Security etcetera.

The judicial filibuster is, in a sense, the Afghanistan of Congressional battlegrounds.

That being said, disaster fricking looms. A pox on bofadere houses.