Elphaba

Harry Reid has stepped out and proclaimed the Dem's position on the filibuster. I'm looking for a rebuttal from Frist soon. Whoever finds it first, please add it here.

What is your view on the right of the minority to filibuster? Do you believe it a useful tool in providing the checks and balances prescribed in our constitution?

_________________________________________________________________

Democrats Stand United against Republican Abuse of Power
By Harry Reid
t r u t h o u t | Statement

Monday 16 May 2005


Remarks as prepared for delivery:

The Majority Leader has stated that the Senate will turn to the subject of judicial nominations this week. Democrats are ready for this fight. We stand united against an outrageous abuse of power that would pack the courts with out-of-the-mainstream judges.

The time has come for Republican Senators to decide where they stand. Will they will abide by the rules of the Senate, or break those rules for the first time in 217 years of American history? Will they support the checks and balances established by the founding fathers, or vote to give the president unaccountable power to pick lifetime judges?

While Democrats are ready to debate this issue, I am deeply pained that we need to do so. The Senate in which I have spent the last 20 years of my life is a body in which the rules are sacrosanct. We may choose to amend the rules by two-thirds vote. We may enter into unanimous consent to waive the rules. But never before in the history of the Senate has a partisan majority sought to break the rules in order to achieve momentary political advantage.

If this happens, it will be a short term win for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, but a long term loss for the Senate and for the American people.

In an effort to avoid this confrontation and preserve constitutional checks and balances, I have made every effort to be reasonable. Last Monday I offered to have an up-down vote on Thomas Griffith, a controversial nominee to the D.C. Circuit. Last Thursday I offered to have an up-down vote on three nominees to the 6th Circuit, two of whom were filibustered last year.

These are not judges Democrats would choose. But we know the difference between opposing bad nominees and blocking unacceptable ones.

In making these good faith offers, I asked the majority: Do you want to confirm judges or do you want to provoke a fight? Regrettably, my proposals were rejected.

Separate from these offers, I wrote to the Majority Leader last week and suggested two ways to end the impasse:

First, I made clear that my previous offer to allow an up-down vote on one of the four most controversial nominees remains on the table.

Second, I suggested that we consider changing the rules in accordance with the rules - if the Majority Leader were to put his proposal in the form of a Senate resolution and allow it to be referred to the Rules Committee, Democrats would take his proposal seriously and expedite its consideration.

Neither of these good faith suggestions has been accepted, and it's clear why. Republicans in the Senate demand to have it all. A 95% confirmation rate isn't good enough. Votes on some of the most controversial nominees isn't good enough. They are prepared to do whatever it takes to achieve total victory.

Meanwhile, the White House appears to be pulling the strings.

Several weeks ago the President assured me that he would play no role in this debate. Shortly after that, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove was quoted as discouraging any middle ground. Then Vice President Cheney gave a speech in which he encouraged the nuclear option. On Friday the Washington Times said that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan "flatly rejected any talk of a compromise that would confirm only some of the president's seven blocked nominees."

It's disturbing that the White House is playing an aggressive role to discourage compromise. Every high school student in America learns about checks and balances. The Senate's Advice and Consent role is one of the most important checks on executive power. The White House should not be lobbying to change Senate rules in a way that would hand dangerous new powers to the President over two separate branches - the Congress and the Judiciary.

Of course the President would like the power to name anyone he wants to lifetime seats on the Supreme Court and other federal courts. But that's not how America works. The Constitution doesn't give him that power, and we should not cede that power to the Executive Branch.

As the Majority Leader admitted during his debate with Senator Byrd last week, there is no constitutional right to an up-down vote on judicial nominees. If there were, more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees had their rights violated.

In fact, the Senate has rejected hundreds of judicial nominations over the years, some by up-down votes, some by filibuster, and some by simple inaction. In each case, the Senate was acting within its authority under the Advice and Consent Clause of the Constitution.

Senator Frist says he wants a Fairness Rule, but a rule allowing the President to ram extreme judges through the Senate is unfair to the American people.

Meanwhile, we need to get back to the people's business, and put the people over partisanship. We were sent here to govern, and right now we're not doing that. Gas prices are up, families have lost health insurance, pension plans are unstable, and the situation in Iraq is grave. The Senate is fiddling, while Rome is burning.

I will continue talking to the Majority Leader, and I know other efforts at compromise are under consideration. But unless cooler heads prevail, this confrontation will be upon us later this week. And if it comes to a vote, Democrats and responsible Republicans will vote to preserve checks and balances, and preserve the principle that the Senate rules must not be broken.

The eyes of the Nation are upon the Senate. There have been few moments of truth like this one. The American people will see whether the Senate passes this historic test.

raveneye

It's worth pointing out here that the Republican position is that the filibuster is justified during debates on legislative bills, but is not justified during debates on judge appointments.

That's exactly the reverse of my position. I believe that the filibuster could easily be eliminated for legislation without any compromise of checks and balances, because a bad law can always be repealed. But the filibuster is important part of the system of checks and balances for judge appointments, because these last for life.

The fact that the Republican opposition to the filibuster is limited to judicial appointments alone obviously suggests pure cynical political motivation (I know, big surprise . . . ). But I'm open-minded; if anybody knows of a well-reasoned Republican argument from the standpoint of Constitutional theory why judicial appointments should be more immune from this kind of check than legislative projects, I'd like to hear it.

But from my point of view, this is exactly the opposite from common sense.

samcol

DUH DUH DUNNNNN!!!

I flipped a coin and decided I'm supporting the Democrats on this issue. Why is this such a huge issue all of the sudden? Most of Bush's nominee's have already been accepted, the Senate should have the right to block his nominations if they aren't qualified or right for the job. Isn't it funny how the conservatives who used to embrace slow gradually change are trying to radically change policy.

StanT

I'd consider myself to be fairly middle of the road politicly. Conservative Republicans and Liberal Democrats both scare me. I think the current system of checks and balances works just fine. I'd feel the same way if the Democratic party controlled government. 95% of judicial nominees are getting approved. If your positions are extreme enough to polarize all of the senators of either party, you are probably not someone that I would want as a federal judge.

martinguerre

it's funny what it took for the democrats to start acting like an effective opposition party...but i think this will be a good hour for us. Protecting the Senate as voice of moderation is quite important to me. i'd rather accept some gridlock and stalling than have a goverment move too quickly in radical directions.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

erion

It's appalling to me how short a memory the Republican party has.

I seem to recall that they filibustered or otherwise blocked 16 of President Clinton's Judicial appointees when he was in office. Now that they can't get their way, they want to change the rules. Spoiled Rich kids at their best.

Elphaba

Frist issued a statement that was reported in our local press:

"Republicans believe in the regular order of fair up and down votes and letting the Senate decide yes or no on judicial comfirmations free from procedural gimmicks like the filibuster and I hope Senator Reid and others know our door is always open to reasonable proposals for fair up or down votes for judicial nominees."

He refers to the filibuster as a "gimmick?" Both parties have used that gimmick for over one hundred years.

sprocket

FYI as far as I know the filibuster has only been used ONCE to stop one judicial nominee.. ever. And both Republicans and Democrats teamed up for that filibuster because the nominee was corrupt and had an investigation pending wich eventaully lead to indictment. Wasnt a partisan thing at all. Whether you agree with it or not, what the dems are doing now is unprecedented.

__________________
Remember, wherever you go... there you are.

Elphaba

Let me look into that Sprocket. Thank's for the info.

StanT

Filibuster Precedent? Democrats Point to '68 and Fortas

You don't have to look too far back. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.

Elphaba

Thanks Stan. My google skills are pretty inefficient, but I did find this:

http://leahy.senate.gov/press/200311/111303b.html



U.S. SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY

CONTACT: Office of Senator Leahy, 202-224-4242
VERMONT


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full Statement Of Senator Patrick Leahy
Thursday Address
During The Republican ‘Filibuster’ On Judicial Nominees
Congressional Record
November 13, 2003

The Essential Question

Let us boil the issue down to its essence, applying the Socratic method.

Have filibusters been used before on Executive Calendar nominees, including judicial nominees to the lower courts as well as to the Supreme Court?

Yes, they have. Of course they have. The Congressional Record is open for all to read. Three years ago, there were even two simultaneous Republican filibusters on this Senate Floor against Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon, two of President Clinton’s judicial nominees. And do we really have to remind our friends on the other side of the aisle about the dozens more who were blocked NOT through votes, in the open, on the Senate Floor, but through holds by anonymous, Republican Senators. Those nominees did not even get committee hearings or committee votes. Sixty-three of President Clinton’s nominees were blocked, in all. Sixty-three.

So the next question is: Then, and now, have filibusters of Executive Branch nominees, including judicial nominees, been rare?

Yes, they have. The Senate’s rules are intended to protect against abuses by the majority that at any given time controls the Senate. And in this case, the Senate’s rules also protect against abuses of power and of our system of checks and balances by a White House that is so bent on controlling all the levers of power that they would even prevail on the Senate to change its own rules.

And should filibusters be used sparingly?

My own view is that yes, they should be used sparingly. And they have been used sparingly. And today, unlike the times of the recent Republican filibusters used against a Democratic President’s judicial nominees, the White House and the Senate’s current majority have colluded to run roughshod over other safeguards built into our system of government and into the very rules and practices of the Senate and its committees.

This year, with breathtaking arrogance, we have seen the systematic dismantling of the Judiciary Committee’s own rules. One by one, the majority has changed, bent and even broken the longstanding rules and practices that were intended to protect the rights of Senators to defend the rights of their States and their constituents. These are the very rules and practices that Republican Senators themselves used – and many would say, abused – when a Democratic President’s judicial nominees were before the Senate.

Would filibusters be necessary at all if the President lived up to the Constitution’s injunction that he seek not only the Senate’s consent but also its advice in selecting candidates for the independent federal judiciary?

Ah, and this is the real question before us. This is what this entire debate boils down to. Is there a clear way forward without the need to prevent confirmation of any judicial nominee? And the answer is that the President has the ability to prevent impasses over any of his nominees. None of this would be necessary if the President were not provoking it. This process begins with the President. Like other Presidents of both parties have, this President could work with the Senate in naming mainstream nominees to our courts. But he has chosen instead to try to politicize the courts. He and his aides have unabashedly declared that they are out to remake the federal judiciary in the image of ideological activism. Our courts are foundational to our system. Our independent judiciary is the envy of the entire world. We were not meant to have Republican courts or Democratic courts, but independent courts.

It is no small irony that a President who declares his disdain for what he calls “judicial activism” has nominated several of the most committed and opinionated and ends-oriented judicial activists ever nominated to our independent federal courts.

The President said he wanted to be a uniter and not a divider. But in deference to groups on the far right, he has nominated judicial activists who cannot help but raise questions about their abilities to act impartially, with justice for all, as we need in our independent judiciary.

Time and time and time again, Democratic Senators have acted in good faith to fill vacancies that Republicans kept vacant by blocking a Democratic President’s judicial nominees. And time and time again, this White House has responded instead with arrogance.

We have stood up for our principles, and for the independence of the Senate in its constitutional role in the judicial confirmation process.

The process begins with the President, and once again we ask him to work with the Senate in filling judicial vacancies.

The Public’s Priorities v. The Republican Leadership’s Priorities



During this 30-hour talkathon, the Republican leadership of the Senate again is following a script laid out for it by a White House intent on bending all other branches of government to its will. This is a White House intent on establishing some sort of unitary government and intent on removing the checks and balances among our three branches of government that are a foundation of the American system. In furtherance of this script, in these rare final hours of this year’s legislative session, the Republican leadership has decided to abandon work on the real priorities of the American people. They are obstructing those priorities, in favor of repetitive speeches about promoting these four controversial nominees to lifetime positions as federal judges -- four people who already have good, well-paying jobs -- is more important than the three million Americans who have been struggling to find any jobs at all.

The Republican leadership has already overshot the Senate’s adjournment date by more than a month. We have already had to enact three continuing resolutions to keep the Federal Government operating because the appropriations bills that the Congress needs to pass have not been enacted. It is now more than five weeks after the fiscal year began and we should have completed all 13 appropriations bills, but the Republican Congress has enacted a total of only four out of 13.

The remaining annual appropriations bills include the funds that go to improve our schools. The funds that NIH uses to advance our medical knowledge in fighting disease and illness. The resources used by EPA to enforce our clean air and water laws. They include appropriations for our veterans and for law enforcement.

Yesterday evening as the Republicans gathered to accommodate the programming requests of a certain television network, the senior Senator from West Virginia was trying to get the Senate to do its work. Senator Byrd, as the ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, was searching for the Republican leader and urging the Senate to complete its work on the appropriations bill that funds services for our military veterans. He asked that the Senate continue that work so that we could finish Senate consideration of this important bill and proposed that we do so in just two hours. The Republican leadership objected. He renewed his request when the Republican leader did appear on the floor but was, again, rebuffed by Republican objection. Those few minutes may turn out to be the most telling of this entire so-called debate. Republicans chose to sacrifice the work of the Senate, the priorities of the American people and the interests of our veterans to a partisan political stunt.

In one of their many press conferences on this diversion, on November 6, the Republican leader committed to “complete the appropriations process” before beginning this charade. Even the junior Senator from Pennsylvania, agreed with that and said: “The leader’s right. What we’re about to embark in next week, after the appropriations process has run its course, is to enter into a debate . . . .” Well, when given the chance to honor that commitment last night, the Republican caucus chose partisan theater over the work of the Senate.

There is the unfinished business of providing a real prescription drug benefit for seniors. There is the Nation’s unemployment and lack of job opportunities that confound so many American families. With millions of Americans having lost their jobs in the last three years, the Republican Senate is, instead, insisting on spending these final days of this session on a handful of highly controversial judicial nominations that divide the Senate and the American people and ignoring the needs of the almost 10 million Americans who are out of work, including those more than three million Americans who have lost their jobs since President Bush took office.

There are the corporate and Wall Street scandals that concern so many of those who have invested and placed their trust and financial security at risk in our securities markets. While we are listening to Republicans pontificate about a handful of highly controversial judicial nominees, some Republican has an anonymous hold on S.1293, the Criminal Spam Act of 2003. This is a bipartisan bill that can do something about the worst spam abuses. Earlier this week, the Washington Times reported that spam is doing more damage to our economy than hackers or viruses. A few weeks ago the entire Senate joined in adopting a version of S.1293 to the Burns-Wyden bill and we joined to pass that bill. Now some Republican has turned around and under cover of anonymity is holding up the bipartisan bill that can be enacted before adjournment this year that can stem the tide against the worst abuses and fraudulent conduct that is gumming up our internet economy and communications. This is the type of anonymous Republican hold that was likewise responsible for holding up more than 60 of President Clinton’s qualified nominees to the federal judiciary from 1995 through 2001.

There is the need for Congress to continue the federal highway programs that build and repair our roads and highways and bridges. There is the need to perform real oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act and to provide real oversight for the war in Iraq. Just as Republicans objected to the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the factors that led to September 11, Republicans are now objecting and preventing a full investigation by the Select Intelligence Committee of what led the Bush Administration to contend that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and was about to use them against the United States and that we had to embark earlier this year on a preemptive war.

Nor has the Senate taken any action on the misrepresentations made to us by Bush Administration officials about their efforts to gut Clean Air Act enforcement. When they appeared and testified before us, they declared that their policies would not affect enforcement of the Clean Air Act and ongoing cases. Over the last two weeks we have seen how far from the truth that testimony was.

For the last three years this Administration has run roughshod over environmental protection and the Republican Senate has done nothing to stem the tide. They have catered to special interests in rolling back protections for clean water, clean air, toxic cleanups and public health. The Senate should be focusing attention on these attacks upon the environment and these rollbacks, but nothing could be farther from the agenda of the Republican Senate leadership.

Forty-two environmental rollbacks by the Bush Administration that have been announced on Fridays is the number the Senate should be working on. There have now been more environmental rollbacks than there are vacancies throughout the entire federal judiciary. The Bush administration’s announcement that they are halting enforcement actions against industrial polluters under the New Source Review provision of the Clean Air Act flatly contradicts the assurances by Justice and EPA officials to the Senate last year. The toxic pollutants that will cause asthma and heart disease for our children and grandchildren is apparently of little interest to the Republican leadership of the Senate. That would be worthy of serious inquiry, debate and Senate action.

Last week the House passed by an overwhelming bipartisan margin the Advancing Justice through DNA Technology Act of 2003, H.R. 3214. This landmark legislation provides law enforcement with the training and equipment required to effectively, and accurately, fight crime in the 21st Century. More specifically, the bill would enact the President’s DNA Initiative, which authorizes more than $1 billion over the next five years to eliminate the backlog crisis in the nation’s crime labs, and to fund other DNA-related programs. It also includes the Innocence Protection Act, a death penalty reform effort I launched three years ago with Senators and Congressmen on both sides of the aisle.

The House vote was a major breakthrough in finding solutions to the flaws in our justice system. I understand that Republican Senators are now blocking action on the bill in the Senate. This bill is the result of extensive, exhaustive negotiations among Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate. It has broad support, both in the Congress and across the country and deserves the Senate’s immediate attention and passage.

We have shown that the death penalty system is broken, we know that the reforms in this bill will help, and we know that every day we delay action may be another day on death row for some innocent people. These mistakes in our system of justice carry a high personal and social price. They undermine the public’s confidence in our judicial system, they produce unbearable anguish for innocent people and their families and for the victims of these crimes, and they compromise public safety because for every wrongly convicted person, there is a real criminal who may still be roaming the streets. This matter is also being stalled by Senate Republican inaction.

The Senate has yet to take up the Anthrax Victims Fund Fairness Act of 2003, S.1740, which Senator Daschle and I introduced with a number of other Senators because we are concerned that the citizens harmed by the anthrax letters addressed to Senator Daschle and to me in October 2001 are the forgotten victims of the aftermath of September 11. They, too, should have access to the Victim Compensation Fund. The Senate has yet to consider the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Extension Act, S.1602, which must be passed before we adjourn or hundreds of families who suffered on 9/11 will likely be left out in the cold without the compensation Congress and the American people intended to provide. Nothing will take away the pain and loss of September 11 and its aftermath for the victims but we owe them the Senate’s attention before we adjourn.

New Rules For Republican Nominees

Rather than consider those important matters, why would the Republican leadership insist on rehashing the debate on the handful of judicial nominees on which further Senate action is unlikely? When they were considering the judicial nominees of a Democratic President in the years 1995 through 2000, they showed no concern about stranding more than 60 of President Clinton’s judicial nominations without hearings or votes. They did not demand an up or down vote on every nominee but were content to use anonymous holds to scuttle scores of qualified nominees. Indeed, they stood cavalierly by while vacancies rose from 65 in January 1995 to 110 when Democrats assumed Senate leadership in the summer of 2001. They presided over the doubling of circuit court vacancies from 16 to 33 during that time.

Indeed, the Republican leader at that time famously came to the Senate floor to defiantly declare that the Senate had confirmed too many of President Clinton’s judicial nominees as far as he was concerned. That was when the Senate was considering less than half as many judicial nominees and had more than twice as many judicial vacancies as there are today. During those days the Republican leader said he only had one regret, one apology regarding his obstruction of President Clinton’s judicial nominees: “I probably moved too many already.” Four years ago, toward the end of the third year of President Clinton’s term, a year in which only 34 judges were confirmed, the Republican leader left no doubt that Republicans and the Republican leadership were unrepentant about their delays and obstruction of scores of qualified judicial nominees when he proclaimed: “Getting more federal judges is not what I came here to do.” That Republican leader would not schedule votes on President Clinton’s judicial nominees when vacancies were much higher and growing in the summer of 2000 and, ironically, sought to use appropriations bills as an excuse. The Senator from Mississippi said: “[S]pending bills must move first . . . . Until we get 12 appropriations bills done, there is no way any judge, of any kind, or any stripe, will be confirmed.” Of course, now the Republican caucus shows little interest in completing the Senate’s work on appropriation bills, even though we are no longer in the summer but four months later in the year, well past the deadline and already into the next fiscal year without having even had the Senate initially consider these fundamental legislative matters. As I have noted, just last evening the Republican leadership rebuffed Democratic efforts to complete action on appropriations for our veterans, which could have been done in two hours.

In those years, the Republican chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee repeatedly argued that 67 vacancies in the federal judiciary was “full employment” as far as he was concerned. He wrote in USA Today in September 1997, when there were more than 100 judicial vacancies, that there was no judicial vacancy crisis and that the 742 active judges were sufficient. Over the last three years, Democrats have cooperated in confirming 168 judges nominated by this President, including 68 this year; we have reduced judicial vacancies on an expanded federal judiciary to 40; and we have 837 active judges, the most in U.S. history. We have 40 percent fewer vacancies than what Republicans used to call “full employment” for the federal judiciary and almost 100 more active judges than just a few years ago when Republicans were content to delay and obstruct President Clinton’s nominees and argue that there was no problem.

So why do Republican partisans insist that the Senate now devote its time to rehashing the debate on some of this President’s most controversial nominees to the independent federal judiciary? Is it merely coincidence that the Republican leadership has chosen to schedule these proceedings for the week of the Federalist Society’s National Convention in Washington? Perhaps this is to give Republicans the opportunity to preen and posture while such an important segment of their base activists are in town. Perhaps it is to give the Republican leadership another chance to make false arguments about judicial nominations. Perhaps it is to give some a platform for baseless and McCarthyite accusations against Democratic Senators. Or perhaps it is to distract from the real concerns that affect Americans every day. Newspapers this week report that this exercise is precipitated because of a “brewing rebellion by conservative activists.” Reportedly partisan diehards “are accusing the Senate GOP leaders of going too easy” and apparently when Republicans appear on conservative radio talk shows “they are often barraged with questions” about why the GOP is not successfully ramming every judicial nominee through the Senate that they control. Apparently this dissatisfaction has even begun to affect Republican fundraising and, according to the Washington Post, “a recent mailing [by a conservative group] to raise money for candidates yielded empty envelopes” from those who had formerly contributed. Let us hope that this is not the real reason for this grandstanding. Let us hope that when something begins to affect Republican fundraising, it is elevated to the top of the agenda -- the public, the responsibilities of the Senate be dashed.

168 Nominees Confirmed

If the Republican leadership has staged this vote in order to try to persuade the American people that Democrats are obstructing the President’s judicial nominees, they are going to have to stray far from the facts, because the facts show that Senate has made dramatic progress on judicial vacancies when and where the Administration has been willing to work with the Senate. Indeed, last week the Senate confirmed the 168th of this President’s judicial nominees – 100 of them, confirmed by the previous Democratic-controlled Senate, in just 17 months. We could confirm several more if the Republican leadership would just schedule the votes. There are other nominees who were reported unanimously by the Judiciary Committee and are just waiting to be confirmed. The number of confirmations could easily total 170 or more if the Republican leadership were truly interested in filling vacancies. Of course, more progress might undercut the partisan message that some are trying to peddle. Maybe that is why for weeks at a time the Republican leadership in the Senate has repeatedly refused to schedule votes on judicial nominees who will be approved, and have chosen, instead, to focus on the handful of the President’s most extreme and divisive nominees.

The truth is that in less than three years’ time, the number of President Bush’s judicial nominees the Senate has confirmed has exceeded the number of judicial nominees confirmed for President Reagan, the “all time champ” at getting federal judges confirmed, in all four years of his first term in office. A handful of the most extreme and controversial nominations have been denied consent by this Senate in the proper exercise of its duties under the rules. Only four. One-hundred-sixty-eight to four. That is in stark contrast to the more than 60 judicial nominees from President Clinton who were blocked by a Republican-led Senate.

McCarthyite Smears

If this show is being staged to give some a platform for repulsive smears that Democrats are opposing nominees because of their religion, Republicans will have entered a realm of demagoguery, repeating false allegations and innuendo often enough to hope that some of their mud will stick.

Of course, substantive concerns about what activist judges would do to undercut individual rights, environmental protection and the separation of powers will not do much to help raise money for the Republican Party, seem provocative in a flyer placed on windshields late on the day before an election, get a mention on the evening news, or satisfy strident right-wing extremists. So some Republican partisans will be putting the truth to one side. They dismiss the views of Democratic Senators doing their duty under the Constitution to examine the fitness of every nominee to a lifetime position on the federal bench and choose, instead, to use smears and the ugliest accusations they could dream up.

This week rumor is that the Republican public relations machine will be cranking overtime to try to make Democratic Senators appear anti-woman. Led by Senators Mikulski, Feinstein, Boxer, Murray, Landrieu, Lincoln, Cantwell, Clinton, and Stabenow, it is hard to see how Democrats can be subjected to such allegations with a straight face, but that is what the rumor is.

The facts are that under Democratic leadership, the Senate confirmed 100 judicial nominees, including 21 women, nominated by President Bush in just 17 months, including four to our Courts of Appeal. During the 107th Congress, President Bush nominated only 18 women to district court seats, out of 98 district court nominees (18 percent), and only 8 women to circuit courts out of 32 circuit court nominees (25 percent). This year Democrats have supported the confirmation of 12 additional women nominated to the federal bench, including three to our Courts of Appeal. This President’s nominees have included only one woman in each five judicial nominees. The 33 women judges confirmed represent 20 percent of the 168 judges confirmed.

By contrast, nearly one of every three of President Clinton’s judges are women. Of course, the Republicans who controlled the Senate and the Judiciary Committee during the Clinton Administration also blocked 18 women nominated to federal judgeships by President Clinton. Women who were blocked from getting Senate action on their judicial nominations include Kathleen McCree-Lewis, Elena Kagen, Elizabeth Gibson, Helen White, Christine Arguello, and Bonnie Campbell, all of whom were nominated to the circuit courts. These six outstanding women lawyers were not extreme or ideologues. They were outstandingly qualified women lawyers whose nominations were blocked anonymously by Republican Senators, without explanation, without a vote, without accountability.



Abusing Religion For Wedge Politics

Slanderous accusations have already been made by Republican Senators, and ads run by a group headed by the President’s father’s former White House counsel and a group whose funding includes money raised by Republican Senators and even by the President’s family when they falsely claimed that judicial nominees were being opposed because of their religion. These contentions are despicable and unfounded. Other Republican members of the Judiciary Committee and of the Senate have either stood mute in the face of these McCarthyite charges, or, worse, have fed the flames. Such accusations are harmful to the Senate and to the Nation and have no place in this debate or anywhere else.

Just a few weeks ago, President Bush rightly told the Prime Minister of Malaysia that his inflammatory remarks about religion were “wrong and divisive.” He should say the same to members of his own party. Today, Republican Senators have another chance to do what they have not yet done and what this Administration has not yet done: Disavow this campaign of division waged by those who would misuse religion, race and gender by playing wedge politics with it. I hope that the Republican leadership of the Senate will finally disavow the contention that any Senator is being motivated in any way by religious bigotry or for racial or gender-based reasons.

Records Of Activism

On important issues to the American people -- the environment, voting rights, women’s rights, gay rights, federalism, privacy rights, equal rights, civil rights and more – too many of this President’s nominees have records of activism and advocacy. That is their right as American citizens, but that does not make them qualified to be judges. As a judge it would be their duty to impartially hear and weigh the evidence and to impart just and fair decisions to all who come before the court. In their hands, we entrust to the judges in our independent federal judiciary the rights that all of us are entitled to enjoy through our birthright as Americans.

The President has said he is against what he calls “judicial activism.” How ironic, then, that he has chosen several of the most committed and opinionated judicial activists ever to be nominated to our courts.

The question posed by his controversial nominations is not whether they are skilled and capable advocates. The question is whether -- not for a two year term, or a six year term, but for a lifetime -- they would be fair and impartial judges. Could every person whose rights or whose life, liberty or livelihood were at issue before their courts, have faith in being fairly heard? The President has chosen to divide the American people and the Senate with his highly controversial nominations. If Republicans want to clean the slate and start fresh, we should do so with nominees who unite the American people, nominees who can be supported by a strong bipartisan majority in the Senate.

We are also hearing the claim by Republicans that the filibuster of a judicial nomination in unprecedented. Republicans themselves filibustered the nominations of Judge Richard Paez and Marsha Berzon as recently as 2000. They previously filibustered the nominations of Judge Rosemary Barkett and Judge H. Lee Sarokin. Of course, while in the majority, Republicans took full advantage of the secret hold and of their control of the agenda to prevent a vote on 63 nominations by not scheduling hearings and votes on them. Many of those now claiming that Senate filibusters are unprecedented participated in them and voted against cloture just a few years ago.

Indeed, as the Senate’s own website notes in an articled entitled “Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment,” the 1968 nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice was filibustered with the help of Republicans: “Although the committee recommended confirmation, floor consideration sparked the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.” The attempt at cloture on the Fortas nomination was rejected by the Senate.

In addition, Republican Senators turned the filibuster of President Clinton’s nominees and of legislation into a destructive art form. A nomination to be Surgeon General, Dr. Henry Foster, was defeated by a Republican filibuster, ambassadorial nominations were filibustered and bill and bill was filibustered as Republicans obstructed the work of the Senate and the legislative agenda. For Republicans to claim foul now, after their use of the filibuster tactic, may earn them the political equivalent of an Oscar, Tony or Grammy.

For three years I have asked the President and Senate Republicans to join with us to fill the vacancies on the federal courts with qualified, fair, nonideological judges. Democrats have bent over backwards to support a record number of nominees. When the White House will work with all Senators, we have been able to identify and confirm judges quickly and by consensus. When the President has chosen to select ideological activists and try to pack the courts, we have opposed a handful of his most extreme nominees.

The federal courts should not be an arm of the Republican Party, nor should they be an arm of the Democratic Party. The Senate should continue to honor its constitutional responsibilities to this third branch of our federal government and to the American people whose rights are protected by our federal courts. No President, with or without the complicity of any current majority in the Senate, can be allowed to relegate the Senate to the role of rubber stamp.

# # # # #

prb

The Repubs blocked the nominations of many more of Clinton's judges than the Dems are threatening to block of Bush's. Clinton's nominees didn't even get a vote in the Judiciary Committee' much less a vote on the Senate floor. The Repubs didn't need the filibuster because they didn't allow the nominations out of committee.

Do away with the filibuster and the party in power can appoint radical (to the left or right) judges for life. What we need - - and ought to have- - on the federal benches
are moderate judges who will follow the law and not try to rewrite it.

The repubs need to lose this one.

dksuddeth

The republicans also voted to filibuster richard paez, a clinton nominee, back in 2000. here is a quote from bill frist himself -
"But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying."

Frist tried to justify this by using a 'scheduling' excuse but was later busted when rep. bob smith (R) released a memo indicating they were going to block paez.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Elphaba

Is it safe to say that we are in agreement that the filibuster has been in use by both parties for a long period of time?

What is your opinion on whether it remains a useful procedural tool of the minority party?

Should the filibuster be defended to the extent that Reid threatens, a shutdown of congressional business?

fibber

"It's appalling to me how short a memory the Republican party has.

I seem to recall that they filibustered or otherwise blocked 16 of President Clinton's Judicial appointees when he was in office. Now that they can't get their way, they want to change the rules. Spoiled Rich kids at their best."

To counter the attempt to polarize the issue, I will attempt to speak moderatly.

The system works, I think the R's are silly to go with such an attempt, but certainly within their rights to attempt it.

The system works, It will continue to do so provided the opposition doesn't become so great by the D's that it sparks some sort of "counter-attack" next time roles are reversed.

To have faith in the system requires that the valid actions within the system are permissable. They should both go ahead full force.

Of course, I've all but lost faith in the system. Those majority of those partisan bastards do nothing but serve themselves, Democrat or Republican, hell some Independents too I'ld assume. With such an even partisan split why go for any moderate vote? No need to appeal to border voters, just lock down all those on your side.

I can't even find info on issues anymore, just each parties pre-determined response and magic-numbers.

I now return to punching myself in the face.

-fibber

Elphaba

Stop that right now, fibber! You are only hurting your good looks. And I believe you are on the correct path in questioning the partisan politics of all this.

My larger question, of course, is how do "we" as a people make our collective voices heard by our elective representatives. The collective moderate "we" has been far too passive and silent over the last several years.

My question is "how much do you care about Federal judicial appointments for life time appointments?"

I care a great deal, and I will support any constitutionalist who examines the law, rather than his or her theology.

dksuddeth

in order to prevent extremists from either side in such a position of power? absolutely.

One needs to ask some questions about why it is that these 7 particular nominees are being 'demanded' to be given an up or down vote (knowing that they'll be confirmed along party lines anyway) and what it is they will be able to decide on in the coming years in their positions.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

flstf

Some of the most liberal judges were appointed by conservative presidents and visa versa. These people have the job for life unless they are impeached and after they get in they don't have to play politics anymore. With the track record of the judges going their own way after getting in I don't see why some senators are so set in blocking them.

Elphaba

I believe Sen. Leahy is correct that these "unacceptable" nominations were resubmitted by the president to force the issue of up or down voting. The president is setting the groundwork for a far more important Supreme Court nomination. If the minority party loses the right to filibuster, the president can expect a rubber stamp for anyone he chooses.

kutulu

You can play guess the nomination all you want, it doesn't apply to this situation. This is about judicial appointments right now, not people appointed 20-60 years ago.

jonjon42

I am disturbed by this. If this measure goes through, it will destroy almost any chance to be bipartisan in the senate for awhile. It also sets a precendent I can see both sides abusing at one point or another. sigh, why can't we all just get along?

__________________
A damn dirty hippie without the dirty part....

adam

If the measure gets through, it will be all-out war, and no bills will be coming out of the senate for a while.

dksuddeth

of course its all about nominees right now. A republican pres and republican majority senate makes it so. Of course, when it was a dem pres and republican majority senate, up or down votes didn't matter that much as long as a single home state senator objected.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

flstf

I believe it does apply today and will for the forseeable future. As long as the judges have the job for life and don't have to follow party lines (Republican or Democrat) they tend to become more independant, much to the dismay of the President appointing them.

stevo

In past filibusters of judicial nominees any senator choosing to participate in the filibuster was give one hour to speak. After every participating senator filibustered for an hour there was cloture and finally a vote. So yes, republicans filibustered judicial nominees, but they went up for a vote in the end. In the past a filibuster was brought up by a lower-level senator. This is the first time in history that the leader of the minority party organized and started a filibuster of judicial nominees.

no one knows if all of these nominees will be confirmed. Dems seem to be afraid of an automatic confirmation if there is no filibuster. No one can be certain that all of these judges will be confirmed until after an up or down vote.

In addition, if the dems want to stop all legislation needing bi-partisan support over this, it is their own political grave they are digging. Why would anyone vote for them again if they refuse to do the job they were elected to do?

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

adam

1) If there was cloture it wasn't a filibuster (or it was a failed filibuster)
2) The Republicans blocked many more nominees of Clinton's by not even letting them come out of committee. So give me no crap about how the Republicans were noble and the Democrats are not.

The whole point of blocking them by filibuster is to require a "super-majority". I think that's actually a decent idea where judges are concerned. Appointing a bunch of folks who are highly objectionable to many seems likely to lead to rulings that are widely disrespected. Society requires compromise and moderation to function.

The Boston Globe had a nice editorial on how slimey Frist's attempt to change the rules is. It's bad faith, any way you look at it.

But the reality is, what the Republicans sow they will reap. I'll cheerfully vote for Democrats for blocking Bush's agenda. Eventually the Democrats will return to power, and there will be a very nasty reckoning... no, I don't like it. But unless enough Republicans defect on the rules change, that's the way it's going to be.

stevo

It'll definately be a nasty day if hilary were to get elected. but she won't so I'm not worried.

I suppose what you are talking about senate rules and traditions. I am. Historically , in the senate when it was said there was a judicial filibuster it lasted 1 hr per senator. The filibuster is about prolonging debate and using obsturctionist tactics for the purpose of delaying legislative action, not to end it all together. Cloture comes about when there is a vote at the end of the filibuster. A filibuster can end and its still a filibuster, if not senators would never stop debating and no bills would ever pass. It appears to me it is the dems wanting to change the rules with the "super-majority vote" not the republicans pushing for cloture and a vote.

You might think a super majority is a great idea, but that goes against years of tradition in the senate. The republicans are the ones trying to maintain tradition, while the dems are the ones twisting the rules.

About clintons nominees: lots of judges don't get out of committee, but these nominess did. They deserve a vote at least.

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

trickyy

this has happened throughout our history, actually...i think it's a very good point to bring up. we don't know how a certain judge will rule in future circumstances. there is a good article about this too; you probably can't access to it so i'm going to post the whole thing: you don't have to read it all at once. or just skip over it (but you'd have to pay to read this anywhere else on the web...) point is, confirmation hearings often focus on elements from a nominee's past that have little bearing on the future cases they hear.

adam

From today's Washington Post editorial:

But if it happens, it happens. There will be consequences, of course. For example, should the Republicans lose control of the Senate in 2006, I wouldn't count on any of Bush's subsequent appellate or S.C. appointments going through... that's the kind of bad-blood it will breed.

I'm not saying this is a good thing; it's not. The country is becoming more and more partisan, with more and more extreme positions being taken by public leaders, with passions akin to jihad or holy war. I think this is very bad for the country, but I don't really know how to stop it. This assuredly isn't it.