ConfirmThem

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

Jefferey Toobin writing in the New Yorker, on Feb. 28:

Senator John McCain, of Arizona, seems likely to oppose the idea. "We Republicans are not blameless here," McCain told me. "For all intents and purposes, we filibustered Clinton's judges, by not letting them out of committee. Making this change would put us on a slippery slope to getting rid of the filibuster altogether. It's not called 'nuclear' for nothing." Several other Republican senators also expressed reservations about the idea, often using similar language. Chuck Hagel, from Nebraska, said that he was undecided, and added, "I think the judges deserve up-or-down votes, but the filibuster is an important tool for the minority in the Senate." Susan Collins, a moderate from Maine, who is also undecided, said, "It's wrong for the Democrats to filibuster judges, but I'm concerned about the effect on the work of the Senate if the constitutional, a.k.a. nuclear, option is pursued." John Sununu, a first-termer from New Hampshire, and Lamar Alexander, Frist's junior colleague from Tennessee, have not made up their minds, either. Even Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who supports the rules change, seemed to speak for many when he said, "Nobody wants to blow the place up."

....

One day outside the Senate chamber, I saw John Warner in an uncharacteristic pose for a politician. He had squeezed himself up against one of the old stone walls in an attempt to remain out of camera range while another senator talked to the press. In the first few years following his election in 1978, Warner was known more for being Elizabeth Taylor's sixth husband than for any legislative achievements. (The marriage lasted from 1976 to 1982.) But Warner, who is now seventy-eight, patiently moved up through the ranks, and today chairs the Armed Services Committee and is an important source of institutional memory for the Senate. "When I came to the Senate, I studied the history of the filibuster," he told me, "and unlimited debate has been an essential part of what we do since the inception of the body. Of course, the Democrats have pushed too hard and stopped too many judges, and I still don't know what I'll do if this thing comes up for a vote. I'm worried about it, and I'm worried about what's happening to the Senate. You see, I'm a traditionalist. That's my party."

No one seems to be acknowledging that filibusters on nominations could still be allowed, for example up to a year's duration, before being ruled out of order. This thing is not black and white. Here's some of Rush Limbaugh's commentary beginning with a quote from the Toobin article:

"Susan Collins, a moderate from Maine, who is also undecided [about the nuclear option], said, "It's wrong for the..." Now, get this quote from her. "It's wrong for the Democrats to filibuster judges, but..." Wait a minute, why the qualifier? If it's wrong, it's wrong, right? Oh, no, no, no, no. "It's wrong for the Democrats to filibuster judges, but I'm concerned about the effect on the work of the Senate if the constitutional, a/k/a nuclear option is pursued." Concerned about the effect of the work of the Senate? The work of the Senate is a bit funny right now on this whole thing. There is no provision for filibustering judicial nominees! There is no constitutional provision that says these nominees need 60 votes to be confirmed. What about the effect of that on the Senate? Where are these people? They're being screwed left and right and they don't even act like they know it. "John Sununu, first-termer from New Hampshire and Lamar Alexander, Frist's junior colleague from Tennessee, have not made up their minds, either. Even Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina who supports the rules change, seemed to speak for many when he said, 'Nobody wants to blow the place up.'" The place is blowing up now, Senator Graham! The place has been bastardized now with what's happening on these judicial nominees. It's time to fix this.

Powerline also has some comments about the Toobin article.