April 21, 2005
PARTY TIME:
Judicial Nominees May Force Filibuster Fight (William Branigin, April 21, 2005, Washington Post)
The Senate Judiciary Committee today approved two of President Bush's controversial nominees for seats on federal appeals courts, setting up a showdown between the Republican majority and Democrats who threaten to use filibusters to block the appointments.In a 10-8 party-line vote, the committee approved for the third time the nomination of a Texas judge, Priscilla Owen, to join the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit based in New Orleans. By the same margin -- with the committee's 10 Republicans voting in favor and all eight Democrats in opposition -- the panel later approved a California judge, Janice Rogers Brown, for a seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. [...]
Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), the Senate majority leader, has indicated he might press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations, a move that Democrats denounce as a "nuclear option" that would trigger a harsh backlash and paralyze the Senate.
To overcome a filibuster -- a parliamentary maneuver in which senators can prolong debate, and thus block legislation, by making marathon speeches -- 60 votes in the 100-seat Senate are required to invoke "cloture" and cut off debate. With 55 Senate seats, Republicans can easily win majority votes but are hard-pressed to defeat filibusters.
Republicans on the Judiciary Committee said Owen and Brown deserve up-or-down votes by the full Senate. But Democrats again held out the threat of filibusters to block them.
Posted by Orrin Judd at April 21, 2005 8:42 PM
If Democrats really want to uphold the traditions of the Senate then they can't possibly object to doing filibusters the old way, where someone actually had to speak continuously for as long as they could last.
Posted by: jd watson at April 21, 2005 9:52 PMI agree completely with jd. Force the Democrats to stage a real filibuster, for as long as it takes.
Posted by: capt mike at April 21, 2005 10:12 PMI commented on this above. To jd's point that's the problem - the GOP crumbles at the threat of a filibuster and doesn't force the Dems to actually do one. Make them do one and show how ridiculous the Dems are being or else the GOP will never get anything passed.
Posted by: AWW at April 21, 2005 10:47 PMHere's the Cohen plan:
The first motion for cloture of debate on a bill or appointment can be defeated with 40 votes.
The second motion for cloture on that bill or appointment can be defeated with 40 votes only if the opponents can hold the floor, 24 hours a day, for 5 days.
The third and subsequent motion for cloture on that bill or appointment can be defeated with 40 votes, but the Senate cannot conduct any other business that session until cloture passes.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 21, 2005 10:58 PMand paralyze the Senate.
I'd like to see both Owen and Brown appointed, certainly. But can someone please explain to me the downside of the outcome the D's are apparently threatening?
Posted by: at April 22, 2005 12:53 AMThe downside would be if the Republicans allowed the Democrats to block the nominations without adequately making clear to the American public who they're blocking. While it's tough to grab the media spotlight from the Democrats when the big media is in general sympathetic to their cause, that's why the GOP Senate leadership is supposed to be in the leadership. Failure to publicize the case for Owens and Brown adequately -- so that the Democrats will pay a price for their obstructionism with some of their most sought-after voters -- would call into question what these people are doing to deserve to remain as the Senate's Republican leaders.
Posted by: John at April 22, 2005 7:15 AM"Well boys, it looks like this is it - nuclear combat, toe-to-toe with the Lefties."
Posted by: Luciferous at April 22, 2005 12:41 PM