ConfirmThem

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

Senator Orrin Hatch has an op/ed piece in the Salt Lake Tribune, and here's a sample:

The fact is, the majority --- the party put in power by the people --- works its will in a variety of ways, within committees and without. And there's a reason the public doesn't read much about what happens within Senate or House committees: there is a lot of wrangling going on, and both Democrats and Republicans know how to wrangle and horse-trade.

But until George W. Bush was elected, no majority-supported judicial nominee was ever defeated by a filibuster. Not one. That was the tradition for 214 years, which Democrats did away with in 2003. We had restricted the filibuster to legislation only, which the Senate controls, rather than judicial appointments, which the Constitution gives to the president to control....I have never supported filibustering judicial nominations. Not once have I even voted against cloture on a judicial nomination --- in other words, out of 33 opportunities to end debate on both Republican and Democrat nominees, I always sided with those who wanted to vote up-or-down.

Regarding obstruction in committee, it should be borne in mind that a simple majority of the full Senate has always been able to yank an obstructed nominee out of committee by "discharging" the nominee onto the floor.

The Boston Globe has an interesting quote from the first person who ever got Borked:

Bork said: ''The immediate future looks like it's going to be rancorous, polarized, and venomous, but the Supreme Court has made itself a political institution, and it's culturally to the left of the American public. The fight is that the Democrats want to maintain that, because it's the only branch of government they have on their side right now."

The best recipe for making future nominations more rancorous, polarized, and venomous would be to give extremist groups increased ability to shoot down nominees---which is exactly what will happen if 60 votes are required to confirm. The Nashua Telegraph has this suggestive quote from Senator Sununu:

“The U.S. Constitution gives the Senate the responsibility of ‘advise and consent’ for presidential nominations and I believe that means a nominee should be given the opportunity for an up or down vote by the full Senate once they are approved by a committee of jurisdiction,’’ Sununu wrote.

Bradley R. Gitz writes about filibusters in The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, including this perceptive sentence:

The idea that judges should interpret the Constitution as intended, and defer to democratically elected legislatures in the many areas where the Constitution is silent, is the last thing Democrats, long committed to the idea of judges legislating in a leftward direction from the bench, want to see further legitimized.

And finally, for now, I cannot resist including the following excerpt from a column today in the Portland Press Herald. You figure out why.

Someone else trying to get a bill in under the wire is Sen. Phil Specter, R-Pa. The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman has been working hard to halt lawsuits against asbestos manufacturers by allowing victims to get compensated through a trust fund of company money.

Here's a hint.