More About the GOP Compromise Offer on Judicial Filibusters
By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
The full text of Senator Frist's speech can be accessed here.
An explanation of how this proposal addresses Democratic grievances can be accessed here.
A copy of Senator Frist's letter to Senator Reid can be accessed here.
Following is an excerpt from Senator Frist's speech, in which he presented his compromise proposal:
In the spirit of civility and with sincere hope for a solution, I make an offer.
This offer will ensure up or down votes on judicial nominees after fair, open, and, some might say, exhaustive debate. It’s a compromise that holds to constitutional principles.
First, never in the history of the Senate had a judicial nominee with majority support been denied an up-or-down vote until two years ago. However, it was not unprecedented either for Republicans or Democrats to block judicial nominees in committee.
Whether on the floor or in committee, judicial obstruction is judicial obstruction. It’s time for judicial obstruction to end no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate.
The judiciary committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process. But the committee -- whether controlled by Republicans or Democrats -- will no longer be used to obstruct judicial nominees.
Second, fair and open debate is a hallmark of the Senate. Democrats have expressed their desire for more time to debate judicial nominees. I respect that request and honor it.
When a judicial nominee comes to the floor, we will set aside up to 100 hours to debate that nomination. Then the Senate as a whole will speak with an up-or-down vote.
The Senate operated this way before we began to broadcast debates on television in 1986. This would provide more than enough time for every Senator to speak on a nominee while guaranteeing that nominee the courtesy of a vote.
Third, these proposals will apply only to appeals court and Supreme Court nominees. Judges who serve on these courts have the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution.
So far, only up-or-down votes on appeals court nominees have been denied. I sincerely hope the Senate minority does not intend to escalate its judicial obstruction to potential Supreme Court nominees.
That would be a terrible blow to constitutional principles and to political civility in America. I hope my offer will make it unnecessary for the minority to further escalate its judicial obstruction.
Fourth, the minority of senators who have denied votes on judicial nominees are concerned that their ability to block bills will be curbed. As Majority Leader, I guarantee that power will be protected.
The filibuster -- as it existed before its unprecedented use on judicial nominees in the last Congress -- will remain unchanged.
Senator Reid and I have been talking almost every day on this issue. And I’m hopeful he’ll accept my offer as a solution. It may not be a perfect proposal for either side, but it’s the right proposal for America.

Recent comments
SG is certainly possible
(2 years 34 weeks ago)Kathleen Sullivan earns a victory; what might be in her future?
(2 years 34 weeks ago)vote scheduled Tuesday for Obama's first district court nominee
(2 years 34 weeks ago)Мысли...
(2 years 34 weeks ago)Ginsburg hospitalized after feeling faint
(2 years 34 weeks ago)Sotomayor joins cert pool
(2 years 34 weeks ago)Carl Tobias 9/23 article on filling 2nd Circuit COA vacancies
(2 years 34 weeks ago)Thx
(2 years 35 weeks ago)Great blog!
(2 years 35 weeks ago)It appears that Sonia Sotomayor has placed herself
(2 years 35 weeks ago)