Dems wobbly on judicial filibuster
By Adam C Posted in User Blogs — Comments (35) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Promoted from Diaries.
John Fund reports in the subscription OpinionJournal Daily:
...Sen. Joseph Biden, a former Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee, appeared on ABC News yesterday to say there was still time to cut a deal: "I think we should compromise and say to them that... we'll let a number" of the seven judges "go through, the two most extreme not go through and put off this vote and compromise." Minority Leader Harry Reid also made clear yesterday he is looking for a compromise.One reason for the Democratic skittishness is the belief that, even though polls show some public sympathy for Democratic arguments about enshrining minority rights in the Senate, there is no clear political exit strategy for Democrats... In addition, the first two nominees that Republicans would bring up to break the filibuster are the two most appealing nominees: Texas Supreme Court Judge Priscilla Owen has been waiting for four years for a Senate floor vote; California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown has an attractive life story as the daughter of an Alabama sharecropper who rose to the highest court in the nation's most populous state. A showdown over filibusters against the two women would finally focus media attention on tactics Democrats are using and might not play in their favor.
Emphasis mine.
Update [2005-4-25 13:25:19 by trevino]:
What's obvious at this point is that the Dems don't have the backbone to obstruct for its own sake indefinitely. Reid doubtless realizes that while these tactics are good for instilling discipline and rallying the base, they are, following the lesson of the '02 and '04 cycles, worse than useless for winning elections. Given the choice between a positive and negative agenda, the electorate will go for the former every time -- regardless of its objective merits.
One wonders if Howard Dean has absorbed the same lesson.
In any case, look for the Senate Democrats to shortly declare victory and climb down. It's all that's left -- and they would be fools to provoke the demolition of the judicial filibuster over this.
I think the Dems are trying to position themselves for the upcoming media battle if and when Frist resorts to the 'nuclear' option.
By offering a compromise they make it more difficult for the Republicans to change the filibuster rules. People will ask why the Republicans had to change the rules instead of compromising with the Democrats. It also makes the Dems less susceptible to the obstructionist label.
A compromise would also let the Dems keep the filibuster in their toolbox and they can use it at a later time against a more important judgeship.
I think you misunderestimate the Democrats by labeling this wobbly.
However, I would posit that this level of subtlety is going to be lost on the Dem base -- see dKos -- which will howl in outrage at a perceived climbdown of any sort. Both parties are in a maximalist mood.
and the Catholic bash fest over there I am not so sure the Dem's should worry about what the masses at dKos think. Markos and the front page posters are the people the Dems need to think about and I believe Kos and crew will understand the subtleties.
The 'independent' voters are the ones the Dems have to bring to their side on this issue and I think Biden's interview is a means to that end.
I suspect that each and every one of those Democratic sound bites was in response to a threat of a Republican filibuster on some nomination. Perhaps they don't get more play because they are preceded or followed in the record by Republican quotes in favor of filibustering nominees?
. . .truly disciplined, they'd ignore the impending vacancy that will come up on the USSC when Rehnquist inevitably retires and wait for Stevens or O'Connor (two of the more likely Justices to step down before the 2008 election), before making their "line of death" last stand. Replacing Rehnquist with even a hard-line anti-Roe vote won't change the power balance on the Court, but replacing Stevens or O'Connor certainly will. However, I suspect that they won't be able to restrain themselves from doing a scream and leap at whoever GWB picks to replace Rehnquist (anyone else remember the venom that Captain Teddy, NARAL, et al. threw at Souter, for God's sake?), and their credibility will be degraded accordingly.
If Frist had the votes, we'd have had a vote already.
He doesn't, so we haven't.
As soon as Frist has the votes to get rid of the filibuster, a vote will take place. Until then, you're dreaming.
I just got off a conference call with Harry Reid and several other bloggers. He's not backing down. At all.
I'd given him credit for horse sense. Rock and roll.
is that once you start down this road, there is really nothing that stands in the way of dismantling the filibuster rule in all situations. I can't help but think that some of the folks opposed to the nuclear option realize that some day down the road, they might not be able to stop that energy bill or social security reform bill or other bill with the filibuster if this thing goes through.
Cutting a deal like Biden describes makes good sense for both sides.
no Supreme Court vacancies this year or next. IMHO if Rehnquist was going to resign, he would have done so already (barring any late-breaking health news for him).
Everyone keeps bandying about the notion that there is certain to be a SCT vacancy, but I just don't see it happening. The justices just don't fit into CW.
That somehow if Bush got elected that a bunch of Supreme Court justices would perhaps keel over and give up their jobs so Bush could pack the court. Supreme Court justices, like everyone else in the Universe, have free will and they can be egotistical, even if they do sometimes seem inscrutiable. They like their jobs, I think. My sense is that individual justices will retire when they're damn good and ready too, regardless of who is the President.
They do have to die sooner or later. For several of them I think it will be sooner than later.
. . .usually take place at or near the end of a term, unless pressing health issues (i.e imminent death or total disablement, as was the case with Justices Black and Harlan in 1971) are involved. If you look at the pattern of recent retirements from the Court (Brennan, Marshall, White, Blackmun), you'll see that they take place in or around June. It's no accident that most recent USSC confirmation hearings have been taking place in late summer/early fall.
It depends, to be completely frank, on the progress of metastasis and how skilled his doctors are at treating it -- he really is balancing how his life is going to end, and I leave that decision up to him because he presumably is much more qualified to know that than I am. But he certainly isn't taking the easy way out by walking away from the court. Certainly his actions up until this point argue heavily against that interpretation.
Liberals should rejoice and breathe a sigh of relief at that, to play devil's advocate here for a second. I haven't heard any other murmurings from other justices that they are ready to leave, either. They're keeping awfully mum if they are. I just think that this group of people is quite capable of deciding when to leave on their own, and I don't think any of them will decide to do it for political reasons. Call me naive, but it's just in the character of what I think SC justices should be like for them to make up their own minds about something like that, regardless of which party is dominant at any particular time. I'm sure they've discussed it amongst themselves in the Supreme Court Lounge over egg-salad sandwiches and coffee at some point. ;-)
Based on my limited knowledge of SC Judges or any highly successful professional, I think they'll make their own decisions about when to step down. But their ages and the health of for example, Rhenquist, does concern me. I would be similarly concerned about a president in his condition, or a corporate CEO for that matter.
I have deliberately not learned the specifics of Rhenquist's condition, but it is difficult to imagine that at some point he should no longer be in his position. I don't think a person with cancer can ignore his discomfort, illness, and the effects of medications to make really good decisions.
And I feel fairly certain, while wishing him all the best, that Rhenquist will be gone before Bush is.
judges who stay on the bench tend to live longer than those that retire from the bench. If nothing else, it keeps their minds engaged and keeps them active.
... says he has the votes.
Don't pretend to know the Majority Leader's strategy; you don't.
You should watch more nature programs, Gadman. It is always better to try to accomplish something by the threat rather than act, whether in the real or political jungle. If Frist thinks he has the votes, he should advise the Democrats of it and give them a chance to make a deal, rather than risk a potentially-damaging showdown.
Or, as a wise soul once put it: The time to settle a case is the time of your opponent's maximum uncertainty.
...
C'mon Mark!
There are two judges, Brown and Owens, awaiting votes from the full senate. They've cleared the Judiciary Committee.
If Frist or McConnell had the votes to end the filibuster and approve these two judges, the vote would be scheduled, the filibuster eliminated through a rule change and the two judges confirmed.
They don't have the votes. They're lacking positive votes from Warner, Chafee, Snowe, McCain, Hagel, Smith, Lugar, Collins, and Specter.
McConnel is lying. Flat out lying.
I find it's tricky to get your opponent to settle just before the Complaint is served.
Yahoo News (AP): Frist, Reid Work on Judge-Approval Deal
....with Gadman. And the dKos crowd.
Now can we say the party's been captured by its extremists?
....who's been such a pleasure to delete at confirmbolton.com.
Obviously no midnight basketball in his neighborhood.
Boy, are you barking up the wrong tree. I'm a registered Republican. I'm pro-guns, for smaller government, against welfare of all kinds, for states rights, and for a few other issues that might surprise you.
However, I'm also against the ever-increasing power of the religious wing of the GOP, and will vote for Dems when appropriate.
I was on the conference call not because of any Dem affliation, but as part of my job for a large metropolitan newsmagazine.
Again... you're wrong.
This will be interesting.
When is the vote on Owens and Rogers Brown?
Don't pretend the Majority Leader has a plan. He doesn't. He just twisting the in the wind.
I hope he's enjoying the lesson Lott and Reid are teaching him about how to win procedural fights.
Just floating the idea of compromise makes Reid look like a reasonable guy. I don't think Reid will back down on the filibuster rule change.
Reid has options here, he can talk about compromise or about what he will do if there is a rule change. He will control the pace of the senate and appartently he has found a way to impact the agenda of the senate as well.
As a matter of comity, the Minority in the Senate traditionally defers to the Majority in the setting of the agenda. If Bill Frist pulls the nuclear trigger, Democrats will show deference no longer.
Invoking a little-known Senate procedure called Rule XIV, last week Democrats put nine bills on the Senate calendar that seek to help America fulfill its promise.
At this point Frist has no options he cannot give away the rule change. Now it's just a matter of whether he has the votes.
This is drifting into the OT, but ...
I find it's tricky to get your opponent to settle just before the Complaint is served.
You know, I've been party to this debate an unusual number of times given my relative youth as a lawyer, and I've seen it played both ways. I really think it depends on your objective (as well as whether you're concerned about a rebounding Dec Action in an unfavorable jurisdiction). And, though it is a fact-based decision, my general experience has been that if the danger of a dec action is low, and if the possibility of a settlement is high, it is more effective (and less costly to the client) to serve the Complaint but not file it.
Now, admittedly, none of this has any relationship to the removal of the filibuster rule on judges, which is more akin to getting a final judgment in a case than merely serving a complaint.
I think many Senators in both parties are so frightened by the implications of this fight that they've taken to wearing Depends. Both parties are getting pressure from their respective "bases" not to compromise. Republicans realize that the majority of Americans are very uncomfortable with a rule change that gives either side more power and Dems appreciate the potential hazards of bringing the Senate to a grinding halt. I think Biden is very astute to start talking about compromise at this time....he's projecting an image of reasonableness which I think is appealing to many Americans, most of whom are politically moderate.
For saving me the effort of making that post. "The Democrats are caving" seems to be the buzz-phrase of the day.
To me, this "compromise" is really no compromise at all, because it really does not address the central issue at hand - the abuse of "advise and consent" and the unprecedented power grab that judicial filibusters represent. If a nominee really is too extreme in the Democrats' mind, they should still feel comfortable bringing them to a floor for an up or down vote, confident in the knowledge that Specter, Chafee, McCain and their ilk have their back.
I also would like to know why these comments aren't being thrown back in the Democrats' faces:
The sources for those quotes are listed in the linked .pdf file.