ConfirmThem

By Paul Zummo Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Interesting debate on the Corner about the political fallout - if any - experienced by the Democrats as a result of the filibusters. Federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy weighs in, opining that the filibusters have not been harmful to the Democrats politically up to now.

This claim is most often made in connection with the defeat of Sen. Daschle. But the suggestion that his very narrow defeat in a state that is not a bell-weather was somehow akin to a national disapproval of the filibusters is wishful thinking at best. Daschle was beaten because of an overall sense that he was a phony on many issues -- a senator who pretended to be a moderate bridge-builder when speaking with the home folks but who was shown to be a vigorous partisan obstructionist in Washington. The filibusters were part of that, but they weren't close to being all of it. Had Daschle won, which he came very close to doing, could it really credibly have been said that this signalled that the filibusters were a a winning Democratic strategy? We would have scoffed at such a contention, and I don't think the counterclaim is any more persuasive just because he lost.

My general impression before and after the election, fwiw, was that the administration had done a poor job making the judicial nominations a consequential political issue. I agree that the filibusters are a matter that could and should resonate with the American people, but I don't see evidence that the issue has been exploited. I don't know what Democrats other than Daschle we are talking about when we say they have "paid a price." Had the national election actually raised the profile of the filibusters issue in any meaningful way, Sen. Specter's assumption of the Judiciary Committee chair would have been much more controversial than it actually was. (That's not a comment on Sen. Specter's stand on filibusters; just an observation that more people would have cared about who was put in charge of the Judiciary Cmte.) The argument after the election was about whether voters had primarily been swayed by national security concerns or social issues like gay marriage. The judiciary, which should be an issue of similarly weighty dimension, simply was not one.

He later adds, "I wish I could be more optimistic, but the only realistic way this becomes a high-profile political issue is if the senate Republicans pull the trigger on the "nuclear"/"constitutional" option. "

Shannen Coffin later responded to McCarthy, noting the issue was important in the Daschle-Thune race, and the narrow defeat could be attributed in part to Democratic obstructionism. The Democrats thus lost their Senate leader due to their actions on the filibuster.

I understand McCarthy's point, and to a large extent I must reluctantly agree with him. The confirmation battles have frankly not reached the public consciousness in the same manner as other issues, and thus the Democrats have a greater amount of freedom to act as obstructionists on this issue. My main contention has been that if there is going to be any fallout, it will likely hurt the Democrats much more than President Bush and the GOP.

Americans may not fully endorse the conservative philosophy as regards the federal judiciary, but it is also highly unlikely that they would take to the streets in anger over the appointment of a Sclalia-clone. What does seem to annoy the public is the appearance of unfairness, and I believe many - if they paid closer attention - would be upset over the apparent lack of fairness in these proceedings. People like to see "things get done," and the filibuster is a tool that prevents things from getting done. The more the Democrats stand in the way, the more public heat they will face, and eventually they will have to relent.

But this issue will not garner significant public attention until a Supreme Court vacancy must be filled, and even then it will not be as public a spectacle as many envision. Still, if the Democrats filibuster a Supreme Court nominee, then they will truly lose public support on this issue. Their only hope is to demonize the nominee, whoever that might be, but with the blogopshere, talk radio, and other forms of communication available, they will not be as successful in a smear campaign with Bush's nominee as they were with Bork.

Harry Reid claims he wants a showdown. I say, bring it on.