ConfirmThem

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

As usual, Howard Bashman has a huge collection of today's filibuster news and opinion from around the country. Amidst that collection is an op/ed from Sen. Elizabeth Dole in the Washington Times, and here's part of it:

Judge Boyle, now a federal district court judge in North Carolina, was first nominated for this new appellate position some 14 YEARS ago, but — unbelievably — he has yet to receive an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. While the Democrats cannot plausibly justify overturning more than 200 years of Senate tradition by filibustering the president's judicial nominees, let's also remember it is equally unacceptable to treat these nominees as political pinatas to further this aim.

Boyle's 14-year wait leads me to expect this offer from the Democrats: they'll give all of the nominees up-or-down votes, but posthumously. Sound reasonable?

Seriously, Judge Boyle's predicament pales in comparison to that of Justice Owen. At least Boyle's delays have resulted from the failings of the Senate majority (e.g. the majority could have expedited a vote by approving a "motion to proceed" or a "discharge motion"). In contrast, Owen has been blocked by a minority.

In other news, two old gents from old Virginia are working on a compromise that would involve teaching the young President how to nominate judges:

Byrd also suggested he and Warner were working on language where the president would pick his court nominees from a pool of suggested candidates "possibly selected on the basis of discussions with state and federal chief justices, lawyers, people from academia and so forth."

How about this: in return for the President picking his nominees from a "pool of suggested candidates," the Senate will only pass legislation from a pool of suggested White House drafts. Sound reasonable?

UPDATE: Patterico suggests another compromise, here.