ConfirmThem

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

Earl W. Elowsky of Englewood, Florida has this to say:

The president's stated reason for appointing certain individuals for the judgeships is that he wants people in those offices who will rule according to the dictates of the U.S. Constitution, not according to their personal preferences. This is what has been happening for decades. Judges have been "finding" all sorts of rights which are never mentioned in the Constitution; they have been virtually legislating on the basis of such findings.... The Senate is not about to abolish the filibuster absolutely. All some senators want is to prohibit the use of the filibuster for keeping the Senate from voting up or down on persons presented to it for federal judgeships. The Constitution does not provide that this be done by some kind of supermajority, as the liberals in the Senate minority want. This would not give the Republicans unchecked power over all three branches of government. . . . [S]aying so doesn't make it so.

Personally, I think the GOP proposal to solve this crisis should cover all nominations, and not just judicial ones. It's difficult to see any principled distinction between judicial and non-judicial nominations, either in Article II, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the Constitution, or in Senate Rule 31. It may be tempting to narrowly focus on judicial nominations, but that would just be a huge invitation for other nominations to be filibustered into oblivion (including a nomination for VP of the U.S. if Mr. Cheney retires).

Also, if the GOP is interested in preserving Senate tradition, and in respecting precedent as much as possible, then what's wrong with continuing to allow nominations to languish and die in committee? As long as a simple majority of the full Senate is able to yank the nomination out of committee and onto the Senate floor (via a "discharge petition"), then there's nothing wrong with continuing to allow nominations to die in committee. Senate Rule 31 only requires a majority vote when a nomination is confirmed or rejected by the Senate, as opposed to being confirmed or rejected by a committee.

And, speaking of Senate tradition, what's wrong with allowing Senators to filibuster nominations? That's a great way to air grievances and extend deliberation. The main point is that there should come a point (before the nomination expires) when the filibusters must end, and a vote should occur.

Having said all that, I'm 100% for any solution that restores the tradition of confirmation for judicial nominees who are supported by a majority of the full Senate, even if only judicial nominations are covered, even if nominations can no longer be disposed of in committee, and even if judicial nomination filibusters are completely banned.