ConfirmThem

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

Boyden Gray of the Committee for Justice has a very good op/ed in the April 26 issue of USA Today. Here's a sample:

Judicial filibusters of majority-supported nominees have never been part of the Senate's tradition. In the past two decades, even with the stakes at their highest, Democrats did not filibuster Supreme Court nominees Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas. Yet in the 108th Congress, Democrats filibustered 10 of 34 appellate court nominees. President Bush's first-term appellate confirmation rate was the lowest in modern times.

The filibuster is not sacrosanct. In fact, there are dozens of laws on the books today that prohibit filibusters on a variety of measures. If it is acceptable, for example, for fast-track authority to preclude filibuster of trade agreements, surely it is acceptable to preclude filibusters where they have never been used in 200 years.
….
Judicial filibusters politicize and thus undermine the independent judiciary. Moreover, requiring a supermajority for confirmation allows the minority party to determine the makeup of the federal courts, a diversion to recapture power by changing the constitutional rules of the game rather than going back to the ballot box.

Meanwhile, Nan Aron, president of the liberal group Alliance for Justice, offers some comments about the slight gestures that the Senate Democrats have made toward compromise: "We’re not pleased." The Democrats had better get back in line.