ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Public opinion polls have consistently shown a vast majority of people support granting all nominees a yes-or-no vote, even while polls suggest that the public is not enthusiastic about changing the Senate rules to completely get rid of judicial nomination filibusters.

If all of these polls should dictate exactly what the Senate does (which is debatable to say the least), then the filibusters would have to be overcome by forcing a real talkathon. That wouldn't be as difficult as some might imagine. The "crs report" (linked at the right side of the confirmthem home page) offers some interesting ideas at pages 9-10. The Senate rules have already been interpreted as allowing quorum calls to be ruled "out of order" when they are dilatory. The Senate rules also provide a two-speech rule. Put those two techniques together, and what you've got is the ability to require the filibusterers to hold the floor and talk every evening from 6PM to 6AM, in a virtually empty chamber, until each of them has spoken twice. And nobody could complain about "Mr. Smith."

Anyway, that's just one idea. The worst idea would be to let this thing drag on forever. If for some reason it's impractical to force all night filibusters in this day and age, then by all means do what it takes to get up-or-down votes for the nominees.

UPDATE: AP reports:

Frist, in a rare news conference conducted on the Senate floor, said he would not accept any deal that keeps his Republican majority from confirming judicial nominees that have been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee. "My goal is to have fair up and down votes. Are we going to shift from that principle? The answer to that is no,'' Frist said.

Cool. AP provides a handy summary of each of the previously filibustered nominees. And, the Weekly Standard provides a useful summary of the swing voters in the Senate.

UPDATE #2: Senator Frist's office has issued a statement called "Senate Procedure 101: Why Not Go 24/7 on Judges?" which quotes the Congressional Research Service as saying that such a thing would be "more of a burden on the proponents of the question being debated" than on the filibusterers, due to quorum calls. That 2003 CRS report can be found here. A 2005 CRS report says: "By precedent, the Senate could make ... quorum calls dilatory at any time, if no substantive business had intervened," provided the quorum calls are merely used to avoid an actual nomination filibuster. I assume that Senator Frist is concerned that deeming quorum calls "dilatory" during nomination filibusters could eventually spill over to legislative filibusters as well. However, after deeming quorum calls "dilatory" for nomination filibusters, the Senate GOP could easily get enough votes for a standing rule or order that safeguards quorum calls during legislative filibusters (the GOP could get those votes under threat of deeming quorum calls "dilatory" for legislative filibusters). Anyway, I'd 100% support getting completely and totally rid of judicial nomination filibusters, if the only alternative is allowing 41 Senators to veto nominees.