THE NUCLEAR OPTION - It has already happened!
Most pundits seem to be quite concerned - on both sides - with what they variously call the "Nuclear Option", "The Byrd Option", "The Constitutional Option", etc. - eliminating the filibuster in the Senate. Should a judicial nominee get an up or down vote in the Senate?
Senator Byrd has said: "The President is all wrong when he maintains that a nominee should have an up-or-down vote. The Constitution doesn't say that. The Constitution doesn't say that that nominee shall have any vote at all. There doesn't have to even be a vote." (WSJ Review and Outlook, April 3, 2005)
Explain the logic in that opinion!
I have concluded that the "Nuclear Option" has already been exercised by the Dems - that is filibustering judicial nominees in the first place. This has thrown out 200 years of Senate tradition for some short term protection of an agenda that the people will not accept.
I ask this question: Assuming the Republicans do not eliminate the filibuster, how do the Dems think they will ever get a judicial nominee with the slightest left leanings through the Senate? Most agree it will be difficult for the Dems to gain a majority in either the Senate or the House in the foreseeable future and even winning the Presidency will be very difficult. But if they do get the Presidency, Republicans will surely not hesitate to use the filibuster to control the judiciary appointments.
I wonder if the Dems have thought this through? They have used the "NUCLEAR OPTION"!
WORD FOR THE DAY: riven
Note: Social Security Facts will continue after a few days hiatus!
Senator Byrd has said: "The President is all wrong when he maintains that a nominee should have an up-or-down vote. The Constitution doesn't say that. The Constitution doesn't say that that nominee shall have any vote at all. There doesn't have to even be a vote." (WSJ Review and Outlook, April 3, 2005)
Explain the logic in that opinion!
I have concluded that the "Nuclear Option" has already been exercised by the Dems - that is filibustering judicial nominees in the first place. This has thrown out 200 years of Senate tradition for some short term protection of an agenda that the people will not accept.
I ask this question: Assuming the Republicans do not eliminate the filibuster, how do the Dems think they will ever get a judicial nominee with the slightest left leanings through the Senate? Most agree it will be difficult for the Dems to gain a majority in either the Senate or the House in the foreseeable future and even winning the Presidency will be very difficult. But if they do get the Presidency, Republicans will surely not hesitate to use the filibuster to control the judiciary appointments.
I wonder if the Dems have thought this through? They have used the "NUCLEAR OPTION"!
WORD FOR THE DAY: riven
Note: Social Security Facts will continue after a few days hiatus!
posted by Jim | 2:25 PM
4 Comments:
I think Byrd's comment is just a reflection on the literal phrase from the Constitution: "by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate."
Without getting into a whole debate of "who started it", my understanding is that in the past generally the 'controversial' appointments were often bounced out of the process while still in committee, so they never reached the floor. Some of those procedural options have been removed over the last few years.
I agree there are political dangers in using the filibuster! And there are political dangers in removing it as an option. Both sides are getting increasingly entrenched in their positions, and the ability to compromise is key to democratic government.
Let's just flip things around though for the sake of argument; if the Dems somehow found themselves in power in both branches, would Republicans cry foul if they had no way of stopping Judicial appointments?
I agree Senator Byrd is reflecting on the literal phrase from the Constitution, but since every sitting Federal judge now or in the past has had an up or down vote in the full Senate I do not get the point! He should be the last one to say tradition can be set aside!
(I think one of the most brilliant rules of selecting a new Pope is that Cardinals over the age of 80 do not get to vote. Too bad our Congress doesn't have the same rule.)
I think it important to cut to the quick in this discussion so I will make this statement: the Dems are solely ideologically driven with these filibusters and it is the first time in our history it has been used in this way. W won the election and Presidents have always been able to appoint judges of their choice as long as they are capable jurists - ideology set aside.
All of his appointees have the highest rating from the ABA - which used to be the Dems requirement, until they realized after the 2000 election that their agenda would only go forward with the judiciary creating it, not in the historic method of convincing the people whose beliefs will then be reflected through their representatives.
I honestly believe the Republicans would not have used the filibuster to stop a Democratic Presidents appointments, but they surely will in the future! A Pandora's Box has been opened up.
Re historical methods of eliminating controversial nominees: I am unaware of any changes in the near past, but there may have been some. The primary method used historically has been "blue slips" from the Senators of the nominees states, which the committee honors and does not pass the nominee.
The tradition of ABA approved appointee who has passed through the judiciary committee getting an up or down vote should be kept, and the Dems have done us all a great disservice using the filibuster to protect their ideology!
Here's a piece from Senator Feinstein with her views on the process. Feinstein on nominations.
I'd mostly agree that the Democratic opposition to certain nominees (note that they've approved something like 95%) is ideological, I'd say that the motivation for certain nominations are also ideological.
In general I think the majority party tends to take advantage of its position (I'm sure this was true for the 40 years of Dem control of the Congress). For better or worse.
Feinsteins speech seemed to me long on inuendo and short on facts. Maybe my bias showing through.
All judicial nominees are selected for ideological reasons - that is what happens when a President and Party win! (Of course, ideology within the bounds of ABA approval and no gross misconduct).
Josh Marshall and a new blogger at - www.basie.blogspot.com - think we have an independent judiciary. I find it difficult to believe anyone can say that with a straight face! You hit the nail on the head, 40 years of mostly Democratic control has led to a judiciary leaning to the left. I think we all need to understand this.
Jack Kelly, in a Sunday column in the Pittsburg Gazette :
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05100/485340.stm
explains what is going on quite clearly. I hope he is correct!
Post a Comment
<< Home