ConfirmThem

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

The two Senators from Alaska reportedly have somewhat differing views about judicial filibusters. Here's what Senator Stevens says:

"I don't like this being categorized as being a 'nuclear' solution," Stevens said earlier this year. "I look at it as conforming with the long tradition of the Senate, a return to the traditions of the Senate."

"That decision was not made until 2001, that filibusters were appropriate to any judicial nomination," Stevens said. "Now I don't think it's 'nuclear' to reverse in that period of time and go back to the policies that existed under Republican and Democratic control of the Senate since the beginning of our country."

"I don't see any reason why people elected to the legislative branch ought to be in the position of a total decision-making entity on a subject that the Constitution gives to the president," Stevens said. "The president has the right to select those nominees and we have the right to determine if they are qualified, period. I don't think we have the right to hold them up for political reasons."

"I do not believe in filibustering judges. I've not participated in one and would not participate in a filibuster against a judge," he said. "I will associate myself with anything that will bring us back to reality, doing what the Constitution says we should do. We should give our advice and consent."

Here's what Senator Murkowski says:

"The fact of the matter is that there has been an ability to filibuster judges from the day the Senate was formed," Murkowski said earlier this year. "And out of protocol, or courtesy, or just a recognition of the Senate's constitutional obligation to give advice and consent on the president's judicial nominees, filibusters weren't even considered up until the 108th Congress."

"That's where I get frustrated," she said. "I don't want to have to change the rules because now some people have decided that they can now use it to their advantage to permanently block a president's nominee."

"It may be that you have four years or eight years of judges that one side doesn't like. But then you've got eight years of judges that the other side likes, so there's an evening of the process," she said. "I don't like the nuclear option, let's put it that way, and I hope we don't get to the point where we have to institute it."

"I was asked a question by one of the Hill reporters the other day... 'Are you going to support the nuclear option,'" he said. "(I said) 'Excuse me, I don't think that we've had any judge votes up yet and as far as I know no one has threatened to filibuster anybody. Isn't this a bit premature?' And he was very befuddled and decided he didn't want to talk to me anymore."

If we have four years or eight years of the Democratic minority vetoing nominees similar to Scalia and Thomas, and then eight years of liberal judges appointed by the next president, then where is the evening of the process? Ain't none. Moreover, suppose that the Democratic minority says to Bush, "Go ahead and nominate someone for Chief Justice, but we will only allow a vote on Stephen Breyer." Does Senator Murkowski think that that would not be usurping the President's nomination power? Even if not, it seems like an awful way to choose judges, and not much different from what happened in the last congress.