July 4, 2005
THAT'S A GIMME:
Senate pact shapes high-court fight: Whether or not the 'Gang of 14' remains unified is a key factor in the fight to replace outgoing Justice O'Connor. (Gail Russell Chaddock, 7/05/05, The Christian Science Monitor)
[T]he terms of the agreement within the Gang of 14 sets a relatively low standard of the advice function, according to Sen. John Warner (R) of Virginia, who with Sen. Robert Byrd (D) of West Virginia, drafted this piece of the resolution.The key document used in negotiating the language on consultation was an excerpt from Federalist No. 66, written by Alexander Hamilton in 1788. It reads, in part: "It will be the office of the President to nominate, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint. There will, of course, be no exertion of choice on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves choose - they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President."
Hamiltonian standards tend towards the monarchical.
MORE:
Filibuster Deal Puts Democrats In a Bind: Pact May Hinder Efforts to Block High Court Nominee (Charles Babington and Susan Schmidt, July 4, 2005, Washington Post)
The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under "extraordinary circumstances." Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances" and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character. [...]Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), one of the 14 signers, noted that the accord allowed the confirmation of three Bush appellate court nominees so conservative that Democrats had successfully filibustered them for years: Janice Rogers Brown, William H. Pryor Jr. and Priscilla R. Owen. Because Democrats accepted them under the deal, Graham said on the Fox program, it is clear that ideological differences will not justify a filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee.
"Based on what we've done in the past with Brown, Pryor and Owen," Graham said, "ideological attacks are not an 'extraordinary circumstance.' To me, it would have to be a character problem, an ethics problem, some allegation about the qualifications of the person, not an ideological bent."
Sen. Ben Nelson (Neb.), a leader of the seven Democratic signers, largely concurred. Nelson "would agree that ideology is not an 'extraordinary circumstance' unless you get to the extreme of either side," his spokesman, David DiMartino, said in an interview.
It's the deal that keeps on giving. Posted by Orrin Judd at July 4, 2005 8:38 PM
I remember just after the deal was announced one of the MSM wrote a loving article about Byrd and Warner being deep scholars for following Federalist 66. Then the blogs with legal background quickly pointed out that 66 actually argues against what Byrd and Warner had done.
Posted by: AWW at July 4, 2005 10:12 PMOJ: Why monarchical as opposed to centralized or federal?
Posted by: Pepys at July 4, 2005 10:34 PMThey were generally centralizers and anti-federalist. Hamilton more so.
Posted by: oj at July 4, 2005 10:57 PMThe President is a monarch.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at July 4, 2005 11:10 PMWell, Byrd thinks himself a monarch, that's for sure.
Posted by: jim hamlen at July 4, 2005 11:45 PMByrd is a royal something, that's for sure.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 5, 2005 12:07 AMFilibuster Deal Puts Democrats In a Bind
Once again, it is established that I am never wrong about anything.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 5, 2005 1:52 AMExtremism is in the eye of the beholder. A justice who does not approve of whacking the kid on the head with a sledgehammer as it is being delivered is perhaps an extremist to the NOW crowd and the MSM, as would be a justice who wouldn't allow you to marry your same-sex Welsh herding dog in a Satanic ceremony.
Like most things from the Congress, the agreement has no substance or significance.
Posted by: bart at July 5, 2005 7:02 AMThis is pretty obvious whistling-in-the-dark by Graham and Nelson. Nelson in particular would pay money to avoid a partisan confirmation fight as he heads into a reelection campaign in a red state.
Posted by: David Cohen at July 5, 2005 7:26 AMAs one goes by the graveyard one can't help noticing that all the headstones feature punditry about how the deal was a defeat for the GOP...
Posted by: oj at July 5, 2005 7:52 AM'..unless you get to the extreme of either side'
uh oh.
Posted by: JonofAtlanta at July 5, 2005 9:32 AMWell, this is the test. Those of us who thought that deal was a loss for the Republicans were basing that on the fact that the Dems would filibuster a SC nominee, and the Reps would let them do it. We'll know in 2-3 months who really "won"...
Posted by: b at July 5, 2005 1:18 PMIf they filibuster a black, Hispanic, or religious the GOP wins.
Posted by: oj at July 5, 2005 3:29 PMWHEN the Demonrats in the Senate fillabuster, the GOP had better make a compelling argument that defends the nominee and paints the donkey boys/girls as ugly obstructionists, or the GOP will lose.
Posted by: Dave W. at July 5, 2005 4:14 PMThey can't lose.
Posted by: oj at July 5, 2005 5:04 PM