ConfirmThem

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

This is cross-posted at C-Log, the Heritage/Townhall site:
Before I begin, please note that I write this from the standpoint solely of political analysis. On principle, the constitutional option should be invoked, and all PERMANENT filibusters against judicial nominations outlawed. The reasoning should be familiar to most readers, so I won't belabor it here. For that matter, I'm anti-filibuster in general, even on legislation. I support the Lieberman 1995 proposal for a step-ladder cloture rule, starting with 60, then 57, then 54, then 51 (NOT including the V-P). ALL THAT SAID, HOWEVER, I think from a political standpoint the Dems are getting close to offering a deal that the GOP would be politically advised to accept. IF the Dems COMBINE the Salazar proposal with the Nelson proposal, as described below, the GOP will have enough of a deal to declare victory. The Salazar proposal guarantees up or down votes (no filibusters) on all judges pending before the full Senate. What I'm calling the "Nelson" proposal says votes on all but two judges, except in "extraordinary" circumstances. As Byron York at NRO explains, "extraordinary" circumstances is indeed a significant step up from merely what the Dems call "extreme" nominees. Okay, here's how to merge the two: Take the Salazar (nofilibusters on eight pending nominees); add Boyle and Kavanaugh to the no filibuster rule (since they are ready for final committee approval); then, for all future judicial nominations during this Congress, accept the Dems promise not to filibuster except in "extraordinary" circumstances. Why? Because if the GOP accepts a deal, it looks good to the American people; it belies its reputation for not being willing to compromise. And this deal guarantees fair votes for all pending nominees. It also puts real pressure on the moderate Dems not to filibuster in the future: WHICHEVER side reopens this can of worms -- ESPECIALLY on a Supreme Court nomination -- will get obliterated in public opinion. Besides, for the high court, our bench is very, very deep. Here's how I see it playing out: All pending nominees, including Pryor and Owen, get confirmed -- although Brown, Boyle, and especially Saad might be real close votes. (Pryor, freed from the filibuster fight, might actually get 60 votes for confirmation.) In July, Rehnquist and O'Connor retire. Bush nomination Judges Garza and Alito (Garza for CJ). Let the Dems even THINK about filibustering those two! No way they filibuster. In 2006, Scalia retires because he's miffed he didn't get promoted to Chief. Bush nominates Edith Jones.Dems sputter an awful lot, but how can they really complain about replacing a pro-life man with an apparently pro-life woman? It doesn't upset the balance of the court. Anyway, after that, GOP picks up a net of one Senate seat in the 2006 elections. In 2007, wanting to head off another nuclear option fight, both sides agree to something close to the Lieberman step-ladder rule FOR JUDGES ONLY. Later that year, either Stevens or Ginsburg retires. Bush nominates Edith Rutledge Clement of New Orleans. She's a good nuts-and-bolts judge, very careful. Conservative, but non-threatening (not prone to controversial statements). She gets confirmed. THe court line-up by 2008 thus becomes Kennedy, SOuter, Thomas, Breyer, Ginsburg (or Stevens), Garza, Alito, Jones and Clement. Not bad at all. -- Quin Hillyer