ConfirmThem

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

This country recently witnessed its first filibusters of judicial nominees who are supported by a clear majority of Senators, and also witnessed its first filibusters of judicial nominees that lasted all the way until the nominations expired. The new Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has been in the lead from the start. When Senator Robert Bennett suggested that Democrats and Republicans each receive 10 hours to debate Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen's qualifications, Reid said: "There is not a number (of hours) in the universe that would be sufficient."

The question now is, will the Republican majority put its stamp of approval on this kind of obstructionism, which never occurred before in the United States?

On January 15, 2005 the Washington Post described which key senators may be leaning in Reid's favor (i.e. leaning against longstanding Senate tradition with respect to judicial nominees, and arguably leaning against the Constitution). I have inserted links providing the respective senators' contact information, into the following excerpt from the Post's article:

In recent weeks, four moderate Republicans have criticized the nuclear option in published remarks that their offices confirmed or did not challenge on Friday. Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (Maine) told the Portland Press Herald, "I just don't see how it's going to benefit us, even in the majority, to change it to a simple majority [vote] because ultimately it could create more wedges and political wounds." Sen. Susan Collins (Maine) "doesn't think the nuclear option is a great idea," her spokeswoman, Jen Burita, said.

Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R.I.) has said "I'm not in favor" of the option. And Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) recently told CQ Today he would not support the option because "the Senate should not be like the House."

Meanwhile, Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.) said in a statement Friday: "I have not reached a firm view on the matter. However, I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception. Without question, though, I am strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations." He said, "I remain to be persuaded that the seriousness of the problem merits such an extraordinary solution," but "the Senate may be forced to take some action to preserve the president's Constitutional obligation to fill [court] vacancies."

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) also has questioned the wisdom of eliminating the minority's right to filibuster, citing times when Democrats ruled the Senate.

At least three GOP senators -- Thad Cochran (Miss.), Ted Stevens (Alaska) and John E. Sununu (N.H.) -- have declined to take public stands on the issue. Democrats hope veterans such as Cochran and Stevens, who have served in the minority, will vote to preserve the filibuster tradition even though they like Bush's nominees.

Senate Democrats, on the other hand, may suffer a defection if Frist tries the nuclear option during a filibuster of an appellate court judge. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) did not support last year's filibusters of appellate judge nominees, his spokesman, David DiMartino, said, "But when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee, he reserves the option to do so based on the nature of the nominee."

The other key Senators who may determine the outcome of the judicial filibuster crisis are: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Sen. Richard Lugar (Indiana) , Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa) , Sen. Pat Roberts (Kansas) , Sen. Pete Domenici (NM) , Sen. Mike DeWine (Ohio) , Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio) , Sen. Gordon Smith (Oregon) , and Sen. Arlen Specter (Penn).