ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Senator John Thune of South Dakota recently gave a good speech, and here's an excerpt:

The Democrat minority now thinks that 41 Senators should be able to dictate to the President which judges he can nominate ....they want to dictate to the majority and to the President of the United States about the kind of judges that he ought to be submitting to the Senate for confirmation.

Former Majority Leader Bob Dole recently expressed similar concerns. Meanwhile, Rush Limbaugh comments about an interesting New York Times piece by David Brooks. Here's a snippet, which Rush begins by quoting Brooks:

"Up until now, minorities have generally not used the filibuster to defeat nominees that have majority support. They have allowed nominees to have an up or down vote. But this tradition has been washed away. Republicans now threaten to change the Senate rules and end the filibuster on judicial nominees. That they have a right to do this is certain. That doing this would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government is also certain."

Now, when I saw that, I said, "I'm parting ways, here." All this is making sense up to that point. I do not agree at all that invoking the constitutional option "would destroy the culture of the Senate and damage the cause of limited government would also result." I just don't see it! .... This is why I'm on a talk show in Florida broadcasting to the nation, and why the New York Times is losing circulation.... What Mr. Brooks --- I don't know if he understands it or not; I don't know him, but it appears that based on what he wrote, he doesn't understand that to accept the filibustering of judicial nominees for the first time in our history is to institute a precedent that allows a small cabal of liberal senators to undermine the last means by which we can actually influence the judiciary, meaning conservatives. The point is they want to deny a conservative president the power to appoint originalists to the federal appellate bench and ultimately the Supreme Court. So what in essence they want to do is pack the judiciary through the back door by limiting conservative presidents' appointment power and that's what this filibuster is all about and it breaks with Senate tradition; it's destroying Senate tradition.

Rush is right, and he also throws in a few choice comments about a recent silly column by David Broder. Broder says that various groups are only concerned about these few filibustered circuit court nominees because those groups want something to keep them busy in the absence of other controversies to obsess about ("To maintain their supporters' interest --- and the flow of contributions that finance their staffs --- the interest groups need more fights"). I don't get a dime for doing this blogging, and I'd much rather be doing something else, but this is one controversy that is too important to ignore.

UPDATE: More from Limbaugh here.