April 25, 2005
TURN THE CRANK (via Steve Jacobson):
Frist, Reid Work on Judge-Approval Deal (DAVID ESPO and JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press)
In private talks with Majority Leader Bill Frist, the Senate's top Democrat has indicated a willingness to allow confirmation of at least two of President Bush's seven controversial appeals court nominees, but only as part of a broader compromise requiring Republicans to abandon threats to ban judicial filibusters, officials said Monday.At the same time he offers to clear two nominees to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals for approval, officials said Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., wants a third appointee to be replaced by an alternative who is preferred by Michigan's two Democratic senators.
The officials spoke only on condition of anonymity, citing the confidential nature of the conversations between the two leaders.
Reid issued a statement during the day saying he has had numerous conversations with senators in both parties in hopes of avoiding a showdown. "As part of any resolution, the nuclear option must be off the table," the statement concluded, referring to the GOP threat of banning judicial filibusters. [...]
Officials said as part of an overall deal, Reid has indicated he is willing to allow the confirmation of Richard Griffin and David McKeague, both of whom Bush has twice nominated for the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. At the same time, the Democratic leader wants the nomination of Henry Saad scuttled. Democrats succeeded in blocking all three men from coming to a vote in 2004 in a struggle that turned on issues of senatorial prerogatives as well as ideology.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has led the opposition to all three men. [...]
Democrats drew criticism when they threatened to stop or slow the Senate's business if Republicans ban judicial filibusters. Party leaders began stressing an alternative approach during the day, attempting to force debate on their own agenda rather than the president's
The Democratic scramble to compromise suggests that Mr. Frist has the whip hand. He ought to learn from predecessors LBJ & George Mitchell and wield it. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 25, 2005 8:20 PM
So they'll approve the white guys from Michigan, but not the women or monorities?
Posted by: Steve at April 25, 2005 8:28 PMSo they'll approve the white guys from Michigan, but not the women or minorities?
Posted by: Steve at April 25, 2005 8:28 PMI don't understand what, if anything, of value the Dems are offering. If they attempt to filibuster, it invokes the "constitutional" option, they lose, and all the nominees likely get confirmed -- and then the Dems get the blame if they try to shut down Senate business. To avoid this, they are offering to not filibuster some of the nominees ? It is an offer that makes no sense.
Posted by: jd watson at April 25, 2005 9:47 PMjd: It makes perfect sense because if you're a Democrat years of experience have taught you that the Republicans will fold like a cheap lawn chair...
Posted by: b at April 25, 2005 10:07 PMB - agreed. This has gone from the Dems are rock solid and the GOP in disarray to all sorts of signs the Dems are looking for a way out. Typical GOP leadership would be to compromise with the Dems when they don't have to, losing the advantage.
Posted by: AWW at April 25, 2005 10:12 PMHolding my breath hoping they don't fold this time.
Posted by: erp at April 25, 2005 10:15 PMI bet if the Republicans keep their discipline, the Dems will let these judges through. They've already succeeded far beyond what they could have reasonably expected in delaying these judges for years, getting Estrada to withdraw his name, making all conservative judges wonder if a nomination would be worth the trouble, crushing the Repubs in the PR battle, etc. Time for a strategic withdrawal, keeping the filibuster intact for the inevitable Rehnquist vacancy (or more) this summer. The enhanced spotlight of a Supreme Court nomination might even scare off a few of the wobbly 50-ish votes that McConnell claims to have today...
Posted by: b at April 25, 2005 10:49 PMA compromise has already been reached. It was debated for years and every Senator has already agreed to it.
It's called the Constitution.
It gives the President the right to nominate. It gives Senators, two from each state, the duty to advise and consent by majority vote. It gives the House no role except possibly for lower court judges: "...Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
After calling it the Constitutional Option, will Republicans now say the Constitution is, after all, optional? If we get rolled on principle, we're done. It will graft a 3/5ths requirement onto the document for all time. And prove us to be mere opportunists.
Whatever the "compromise" might be today, the Republicans should realize that all bets are off when the first Supreme Court nomination comes up.
Posted by: Rick T. at April 26, 2005 9:59 AMThe Democrats will filibuster a Supreme Court nominee at their peril. I don't believe they could hold Conrad, both Nelsons, Landrieu, and Pryor. Especially if the nominee is a minority, in which case HRC will vote for cloture as well.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 26, 2005 10:42 AMDon't cave in on us now Frist!
Posted by: Genecis at April 26, 2005 10:49 AM