ConfirmThem

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

Once again Ramesh Ponnoru has the latest, this a response to Senator Reid's comments about a "60-vote threshold" always having been in place.

FACT CHECK: There has NEVER been a 60-vote threshold for judicial nominations
At his stakeout today, the Minority Leader, Harry Reid, made some interesting, if inaccurate comments about judicial nominations.

In particular, he said:

“Renomination is not the key. I think the question is, those judges that have already been turned down in the Senate. And unless there's something that is new that I'm not aware of with each of these men and women, we will vote the same way we did in the past.”

That charge, though, is inaccurate. NONE of President Bush’s judicial nominees have “been turned down in the Senate.” None. The nominees he referred to were denied a vote altogether—despite the fact that they all had (and have) bipartisan majority support. ALL would be confirmed if a partisan minority of the Senate would allow an up-or-down vote. It’s a little difficult to “turn down” a nominee if he or she never gets an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.

Sen. Reid also mentioned what he characterized as Republican obstruction of Clinton nominees. In particular, he singled out Judge Richard Paez. But there’s just one problem: Richard Paez was confirmed by the Senate; he had an up-or-down vote and is now a sitting judge.

The 10 nominees filibustered by Sen. Reid and others during President Bush’s term, however, are still waiting to be treated as “poorly” as Judge Paez.

Sen. Reid also claimed that there has “always been” a 60-vote threshold for judicial nominations:

“It's always been a 60-vote for judges. There is --nothing change. Go back many, many, many years. Go back decades and it's always been that way.”

But we did “go back decades” and look. It hasn’t always been that way. Many nominees, including Paez, were confirmed with less than 60 votes. In fact the Senate has consistently confirmed judges who enjoyed majority but not 60-vote support — including Clinton appointees Paez, William Fletcher, and Susan Oki Mollway, and Carter appointees Abner Mikva and L. T. Senter.

Of course there has been some debate on this very blog over the accuracy of Senator Reid's version of history. In my view, strictly speaking, these nominees were never rejected. I understand's Andrew's point about certain not-voted upon legislation as being rejected because a clear majority would not accept it. However, in this case, there is no evidence that the judges in question would have been rejected by a majority of the Senate. In fact it is quite likely that had the full Senate been allowed to offer a simple up-or-down vote, that most - if not all - of the nominees would have been approved.

Of course Andrew's larger point about Rule 31 is significant and hopefully there are Republican Senators out there paying attention. I think we're all in agreement that Democratic behavior on this issue has been abhorrent, and Republicans are supported by both the Constitution and Senate rules to force a vote. It is in that light that my kudos go to Senator Cornyn for his diligence and tireless efforts on this matter.