ConfirmThem

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

Confirmthem has previously reported comments by former Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole regarding the judicial filibuster controversy. Yesterday, he was interviewed by Wolf Blitzer on CNN. In addition to discussing Sen. Dole's new book (titled "One Soldier's Story"), they also talked about judicial nominations:

I've said you've got to use extreme caution. It's got to be a last resort. You've got to try negotiation. You've got to try everything with the other side.

But the bottom line is the president ought to nominate judges, not the minority party, whether it's Republicans or Democrats.

More of the interview is pasted below. I think Senator Dole has hit the nail on the head. Suppose the Senate minority said, "We won't allow a vote on any nominee for Chief Justice unless it's Jerry Springer." Surely, that would be usurping the nomination power. The usurpation would be no less egregious if the minority instead said, "We won't allow a vote on any nominee for Chief Justice unless it's a raunchy talk show host." Just switch "raunchy talk show host" to "consensus nominee," and you see what the minority is now trying to do, and why it is unconstitutional. Anyway, here's more of the Dole-Blitzer interview:

BLITZER: Let's talk a little about Senator Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader. He wants to change the rules of the game now to prevent filibusters where you need 60 votes out of 100 to move legislation or action forward because of the stand-off on these judicial nominees.

Is he right -- Senator Frist -- should they eliminate the filibuster?

DOLE: Not eliminate the filibuster. In fact, I was a little worried about this when I first heard it. But now it's been limited just to judicial nominees. ....I think the stage of play now is that it applies only to judicial nominees. It's very limited. And my advice to Bill Frist is: That's got to be a last resort. You've got to make every effort to come to terms. I checked and I'm told that during my 12 years as a Republican leader we never held up anybody for a vote, a judicial nominee. So I do think the Democrats are sort of going against tradition here.

BLITZER: Well, former President Bill Clinton repeatedly points out that whole dozens of his judicial nominees weren't filibustered but they were just...

DOLE: Well, they...

BLITZER: ... sort of kicked aside. And they didn't even come up for a hearing or a vote.

DOLE: They came up late. And you know, a lot of his nominees came up late. And I think he doesn't tell you that. But I can recall, you know, you have sort of a shut-off date, particularly in a presidential year. It used to be about July 1st.

If you didn't get your hearing in a vote in a committee, in judiciary committee, your guy probably -- or lady -- wasn't going to be sent to the floor. Because I remember pleading with the then majority leader to get a Kansan confirmed before we left. I finally worked it out.

BLITZER: Senator McCain and other Republicans say this can be shortsighted. Because you know what? The Republicans aren't going to be the majority in the U.S. Senate forever. There presumably could be a Democratic takeover and they could play the same kind of games as the Republicans.

DOLE: And I've thought about that a lot. I've said you've got to use extreme caution. It's got to be a last resort. You've got to try negotiation. You've got to try everything with the other side.

But the bottom line is the president ought to nominate judges, not the minority party, whether it's Republicans or Democrats. It seems to me what's fair is to report out a nominee with no recommendation or whatever and let the full Senate vote. That would ensure the Democrats would have the same treatment the Republicans have. Maybe make this for eight years. It would be four Bush years and the Democrats probably hope there'd be four Democratic years.