Senate Republicans get creative in reaction to Dems’ filibusters
The fight between Senate Democrats, the White House, and Senate Republicans over Bush’s most conservative judicial nominees is making the GOP, well, a little nutty.
If you’re just joining us, Bush has worked diligently to nominate several right-wing conservatives to the federal bench. Democrats, during their brief tenure in the majority in 2002, blocked many of the most offensive judicial nominees while supporting the nominations of Bush’s more moderate judges. Now that they’re in the minority again, Democrats are using the only tool at their disposal — the filibuster — to block a handful of Bush’s worst nominees, including Michael Estrada and Priscilla Owen.
Republicans frequently highlight the fact that there is a near crisis in the judicial system based on the high number of unfilled vacancies to the federal bench. Overworked judges are simply having trouble keeping up with overcrowded dockets. Democrats, in turn, remind their GOP colleagues that the main reason there are an overabundance of open judicial slots is that Republican senators blocked so many of Bill Clinton’s judicial nominees. As a blog called Demogogue noted today, 54 of Clinton’s judicial nominees between 1995-2000 (when the GOP was in the majority) never received a vote in the Judiciary Committee and 49 of these nominees never got so much as a hearing from the Republican majority.
Indeed, there are 50 federal vacancies in the federal judiciary now and Hatch declares it a “crisis.” There were 64 vacancies at the end of Clinton presidency and Hatch argued there is “no judicial vacancy crisis.”
Left with no other options except rolling over and playing dead, Democrats are now using filibusters to block the judicial nominations they consider to be the most serious. Republicans can break the filibuster with 60 votes, but with 51 Republicans in the Senate, they haven’t had much luck.
Some in the chamber have begun discussions on changing the process to discontinue the ability for senators to filibuster presidential nominees. I think that’s a mistake, but if senators want to change the rules as to how the institution deliberates, that’s up to them.
More amusing, however, is a novel idea from two freshmen senators — Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Saxby Chambliss (R- Ga.) — who are so frustrated with Senate Democrats for blocking two Bush judicial nominees they’re considering extreme measures.
That’s right, Graham and Chambliss (neither of whom is considered the sharpest crayon in the box, if you know what I mean) have begun a process of researching the constitutional and procedural mechanisms involved with filing a federal lawsuit against the very body in which they were elected to serve.
Chambliss told Roll Call that he and Graham “have talked seriously and extensively about this.”
That’s great, Senator, but have you ever heard of “separation of powers”? How could a federal judge be expected to rule on a lawsuit filed by senators against the Senate on a self-imposed rule created by other senators? I’m not a lawyer (but I play one on TV) and even I can appreciate just how frivolous this proposed stunt would be.
“Even the thought that the courts would get involved in Senate business is mind-boggling,” said Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst who studies the federal appellate nomination process. “If this isn’t a separation of powers issue, what is?”
And as Roll Call noted, there would be some interesting logistical difficulties. If Chambliss and Graham sued the Senate, they would in essence be both plaintiffs and defendants in the same case. In addition, the Senate counsel’s office usually defends the Senate’s lawmakers, so Chambliss and Graham might need outside counsel to sue.
Not surprisingly, right-wing activists love the idea of taking this to court.
The Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, a Republican front group that works to support Bush’s judicial nominees, said such a lawsuit would be worth pursuing.
“Why is it outside the thought of anything relevant to go into a courtroom and say, ‘You know what, our Constitution is at stake here’?” said Kay Daly, a spokesperson for group.
Remarkably, senators who should know better aren’t ruling out the idea.
“It certainly could be taken to court,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said last week.
Meanwhile Sen. Rick “man on dog” Santorum (R-Pa.), the Senate Republican Conference Chairman, said the lawsuit is one of the “options…being considered.”
I have a more sensible solution to the stalemate — Bush can work with Democrats to select moderate, centrist judicial nominees that would be approved without controversy. I know, I know, I ask too much.