ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

David Broder is urging Sen. Reid and the Democrats to accept the Frist proposal with respect to circuit court nominations only, without accepting anything about Supreme Court nominations.

However, Reid is still insisting that, "I will never give up the right for extended debate." Of course, the 100 hours of debate (offered by Frist) doesn't exactly mean Reid would be bound and gagged. What Reid really wants is perpetual debate, which is something that the Senate has often given up (e.g. for debate about trade agreements and budget resolutions).

Anyway, in related news, Sen. Chuck Schumer followed in the footsteps of Mario Cuomo, by delivering the Dems' Radio Address today, in which he urged Pres. Bush to intervene in the filibuster fight. Schumer wants Bush to tell some of the pro-majority-vote activists to ease up a bit. Of course, Schumer is asking for Bush to do something that Harry Reid has already insisted that Bush not do; Reid recently said, “I met with the president and was encouraged when he told me he would not become involved...." Seems to me that the President should accept Schumer's invitation to become involved, and should now bring the full influence of the presidency into the effort to restore the traditional up-or-down votes for majority-supported judicial nominees who reach the Senate floor.

Sen. Frist recently asked members of the House of Representatives to become somewhat involved, according to press reports:

Chabot and the other House Republicans got involved after Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist called a few weeks ago and asked for their help. Their charge is to refine the party's message and educate the public about what's at stake and how everyone is affected....."By exercising the filibuster to block nominees, they are requiring a higher standard than is called for in the Constitution.''

I think both the House and the President should become more involved. After all, Senate Democrats like Herb Kohl have already threatened retaliation against business leaders who do not become involved.

The New York Times reports the following today, among other things:

Seizing on Democratic threats to slow the majority agenda in the Senate, Republicans intend to paint Democrats as uncompromising obstacles to popular legislation. The message is simple, they say - no highway money, no energy bill, no tax relief.

"My own judgment is that this operates in our favor," said Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas. "It would just cement their reputation as obstructionists."

....

[A] move before the end of May seems almost assured. By the end of this week, five judges opposed by Democrats could be awaiting floor action, though it is unclear which of them might be brought forward to trigger the showdown.

Associated Press has a story aptly titled "And the nominees are ... targets of opportunity," which includes this bit of accurate analysis:

As for the current nomination battle, Bork said, "I think it's nastier than it's ever been probably. A lot of people say it started with me, but I think it's grown increasingly nasty. I was in town when Nixon was going down. Oddly enough, the town was less bitter then than it is now."

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said Guinier and Bork became "convenient placeholders for wider political controversy." That is the case this time, too, he said.

"These people have entered the dangerous realm of symbolism," Turley said. "Some of these nominees appear almost to have been selected at random."

The seven at the center of today's storm are appeals court nominees whom the Democrats rejected during President Bush's first term and whose names Bush resubmitted to the Senate this year.

This whole debate --- about whether debates should end --- is itself going to end soon. Let's hope that it has a decent ending, for the country's sake.