ConfirmThem

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

On ABC's This Week program today, Michigan's Sen. Carl Levin accidently blurted out the true Democratic position, as reported by Mark Kilmer of Redstate:

Levin declared that "we should not give up on the principle" of the right to filibuster judges, including Supreme Court nominees. He said that it was "important to have the power of minority rule." He quickly corrected, "Not minority rule." He added that "we should not throw out the rule book."

Scott Johnson has a piece in the Weekly Standard, titled "They Were Against It, Before They Were For It" regarding filibuster flip-flops in Minnesota.

The Washington Post describes the upcoming schedule:

[N]umerous aides say a filibuster showdown is most likely in about two weeks, shortly before the Memorial Day recess. But Frist spokesman Bob Stevenson said Friday the issue "could come up at any time."

....

Thursday should be a doozy of a day in Congress. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee could spend hours discussing the latest allegations against John R. Bolton before voting on his nomination to be U.N. ambassador. The Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled debate, and possibly votes, on three appellate court nominees whom Democrats may filibuster: William H. Pryor Jr. (tapped for the 11th Circuit); Terrence W. Boyle (4th Circuit); and Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit).

If these highly qualified nominees are filibustered, and the Senate majority allows the minority to demand nominees more to their liking, then at least let's have real filibusters. That means getting rid of dilatory quorum calls, and enforcing the two-speech rule. Better yet, why not give the Vice President greater authority to interrupt Senators who filibuster appellate nominations? The rule of unlimited debate (Rule 19) only prevents filibusterers from being interrupted by other Senators, and says nothing about interruptions by the Vice President.

Former Senator Slade Gorton of Washington State has some thoughts about the filibuster situation:

I regret the necessity of changing Senate rules on extended debate. I hope for a compromise that will retain those rights and allow votes on all Presidential nominees. But in the absence of such an agreement, it would be disastrous to change the processes of two hundred years and begin a system in which confirmation requires sixty votes. The "nuclear option" is a bad idea, but the present position of the Democrats is far worse.

Gary Andres discusses the wording of poll questions, in the Washington Times. Also, Gallup has updated poll info here (Gallup says the public is not paying much attention).