December 27, 2004
PRIOR RESTRAINT?:
New GOP Senators May Back Filibuster Limits: Others say a rule change to prevent Democrats from blocking judicial nominees would be at odds with renewed efforts at bipartisanship. (Nick Anderson, December 27, 2004, LA Times)
Sen.-elect John Thune (R-S.D.) said he wanted to put an end to the Democratic tactic of filibustering high-profile judicial nominees — which involves essentially talking the nominations to death without allowing an up or down confirmation vote.Senate Republican leaders, bolstered by the party's Nov. 2 victories, are weighing a move to deny Democrats the right to filibuster judicial nominees indefinitely in the coming Congress. The issue is especially sensitive since Bush's announcement last week that he would renominate seven people for appellate courts who were stymied by filibusters during the last Congress — and in light of the possibility of upcoming Supreme Court vacancies.
"I'm open to supporting that kind of a rule change where judges are concerned," Thune said. He acknowledged that it would be "somewhat controversial, and everybody would argue, and certainly the minority would argue against that."
Sen.-elect Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), appearing with Thune, said he too would seek to end "apparent obstruction" by Democrats. "I think if it continues, then we have to look at those rules and some of the precedents that exist to move these appointments to the floor and have them debated for confirmation," Isakson said.
But Sen.-elect Ken Salazar (D-Colo.) said a Republican bid for a rule change would poison the atmosphere of the Senate just when Bush was seeking to move a second-term agenda.
"I think it's going to be a bloody fight," Salazar said on the CBS show, "and I would hope that it can be avoided, and I would ask my colleagues to try to avoid that in the U.S. Senate. I think that the best thing to do is for the president to have consultation both with Republicans and with Democrats prior to making the appointments."
Mr. Salazar appears to be reading a different Constitution. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 27, 2004 7:53 AM
Funny how the "advice and consent" clause of the constitution regarding the role of the senate no longer seems to mean very much. Since senators no longer answer to their state legislators but to an easily manipulated electorate, the President has little choice but to take the advice of his party rather than a theoretically more disinterested senate which no longer serves a larger good. Remember, your only being partisan when you disagree with me.
Posted by: Tom C., Stamford,Ct. at December 27, 2004 2:12 PMFine. If the Dems can refrain from flilbusters, then the GOP should refrain from changing the rules. But the Dems seem to think they should get a free pass to filibuster at will, and whine about attempts to fight back.
If the Dems get slapped down, they might finally realize that the reality is that they are the minority party, and can have done to them all the things they did to the GOP for a half century.
Posted by: Raoul Ortega at December 27, 2004 2:18 PMBi-partisanship my arse.
I sent $15.00 to Thune for his campaign and he's speaking for me. I own him now.
P.S. He sent me a Christmas card and a separate handwritten note of thanks for my crummy donation. I tell you this man's going places.
Posted by: Genecis at December 27, 2004 9:06 PMSalazar is not making a constitutional argument, merely a political one. He is going to have to move towards the center or be a one-term Senator.
Posted by: Bart at December 28, 2004 6:37 AM