-

April 28, 2005

Setting the Stage on Filibusters

Senate Majority Leader Frist took the floor today and offered a compromise on changing Senate rules. The changes would prevent judicial obstruction, both by filibuster and at committee level -- the latter something Republicans engaged in quite often during the Clinton years. He also offered to guarantee 100 hours of debate on each nominee. But, he rightly pointed out:

Never in 214 years -- never in the history of the Senate -- had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote…until two years ago.

In the last Congress, the President submitted 34 appeals court nominees to the Senate. A minority of senators denied ten of those nominees -- and threatened to deny another six -- up-or-down votes.

They wouldn’t allow votes, because they knew the nominees would be confirmed and become judges. The nominees had the support of a majority of senators.

Now, in this new Congress, the same minority says it will continue to obstruct votes on judges. And, even worse, if they don’t get their way, they threaten to shut down the Senate and obstruct government itself.

Throughout this debate, we have held firm to a simple principle -- judicial nominees deserve up-or-down votes. Vote for them. Vote against them. But give them the courtesy of a vote.

Yet judicial nominees have not been given that courtesy. They’ve gone 2, 3, even 4 years without a vote. Now 46 seats on the federal bench are vacant -- as case after case and appeal after appeal stack up.

One nominee -- Priscilla Owen -- has served 10 years as a justice on the Texas Supreme court. She won reelection with 84% of the vote in Texas, yet she can’t get the courtesy of a vote to be confirmed by the Senate.

Judicial nominees are being denied. Justice is being denied. The solution is simple -- allow Senators to do their jobs and vote.

Dr. Frist also indicated that there was no compromise possible that involved withdrawing nominations. Good, that, since he'd not be Majority Leader long if he offered anything of the sort.

Harry Reid and the Democrats seem to rejecting this out of hand, blaming right-wing extremists (i.e. anyone to the right of David Souter) for the impasse. One would hope that this rejection would be seen for what it is, making the coming hostile rule change more acceptable to the public. But the MSM spin seems to be written by Reid himself, so who's to say.

Posted by Kevin Murphy at April 28, 2005 12:41 PM | TrackBack