U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 2 [excerpted]:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the 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.
So if the Republicans are right that "advice and consent" means no filibuster, then this applies to all nominations. In fact, the ambassadorship of James Hormel was filibustered by right wing Republicans because he was gay. In 1968, conservative Republicans filibustered the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Nuclear Option Hypocrisy
Posted by The Law Talking Guy at 2:00 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
This threat by the Republican leadership is really short sighted. Think of it. The Republicans are saying, in essance, "Accept nominations that will only pass with a party line vote or we'll change the rules so that a party line vote is all that we need." To the Republicans "compromise" on this issue is for Democrats to stop fillibustering all nominees. But wouldn't the compromise be for Bush to submit new nominees he finds acceptable that aren't so controversial? Ah, but here we run into the religious motive again...you can't compromise if you think your opinions are the Earthly manifestation of the wil of God.
I've been thinking there is NO reason for the Democrats to back down. If they back down, they get radical right win judges. But if the fillibuster is ended, they'll appoint radical LEFT wing judges when they get control of the Senate some time in the future. The only way the Republicans can get their radical judges without fear of future radical left judges is to get the Demcorats to back down without having to end to filibuster. I find it hard to believe that the Republicans really think that ending the filibuster won't have negative effects on them in the future. Wouldn't it be much better for them for Bush to simply submit new names?
And this is the crux of the problem. Bush doesn't care about the future (because of term limits, he won't be around to deal with the consequences and he may think the Rapture will come before the Democrats take back the Senate). But the Senate Republicans will be there to face the consequences. I imagine that Senate leaders have been privately begging the White House to submit new names. But now that Bush has resubmited nominations he KNEW would not pass without ending the filibuster, they will go along for the ride...to a point.
The more I think about it, the more I think this will be for Bush what the Government Shutdown crisis was for Newt Gingrich.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
The Democrats need to remember: it's not about the filibuster... it's about the judicial nominees. They should remind voters that 60% of the federal judges are already conservative Republicans, and despite that, the Senate Democrats have approved over 90% of Bush's judicial nominees. But these two are much too extreme. "When the president nominates qualified, honest judges, we always approve them--but when he tries to put a politician in a judge's clothing on the bench, we have to put a stop to it." Democrats also need to remind Americans of the GOP's unprecedented wholesale blocking of Clinton's nominees.
I agree with Dr. Strangelove about how to play this before the public. But I still think the best strategy for the Democrats behind the scenes is to make it clear to the Republicans that if they remove the filibuster on this issue, they'll never get it back when the Democrats get a majority in the Senate. In game theoretic models this is called the "Grim Trigger" strategy. It is the most effective way to maintain cooperative adherence to rules and norms.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
I agree with Dr. Strangelove about how to play this before the public. But I still think the best strategy for the Democrats behind the scenes is to make it clear to the Republicans that if they remove the filibuster on this issue, they'll never get it back when the Democrats get a majority in the Senate. In game theoretic models this is called the "Grim Trigger" strategy. It is the most effective way to maintain cooperative adherence to rules and norms.
// posted by Raised By Republicans
Post a Comment