Filibuster Rules

According to this Washington Times article, Senator Bill Frist has the necessary votes to change the rules of filibuster, which the Democrats have been using to block judicial nominations by President Bush.  He seems hesitant to change them, though. 

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist says he has the 51 votes needed to change Senate rules and make it easier for Republicans to overcome Democratic filibusters against President Bush's judicial nominees, but he hopes such a change won't be necessary.

"We need to restore the over 200-year tradition and precedent of allowing every nominee of the president who has majority support an up-or-down vote on the floor of the United States Senate," Mr. Frist told The Washington Times on Thursday.

I don't know what his problem is.  Filibuster tactics that now require that a super majority exist before a judicial appointment can be confirmed are unconstitutional.  Why would he hope a change isn't necessary?  Perhaps Dr. Frist will do something in the political realm that impresses me, but I won't hold my breath.

"It's consistent with the Constitution, where we are as a body to give advice and consent, and the only way we can give advice and consent is an up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate."

Mr. Frist said he has not made a decision on whether he will force the rule change the first time that Democrats filibuster a nominee.

How about the second time?  Maybe then?

Comments

[Scott]

Senate Repubs were blocking Clinton nominees in committee during the 90s. This is much ado about nothing. 95% of nominees have been approved over the last 10 years in both White Houses. That rate is plenty high enough for me. I've actually thought Repubs were acting like babies, Dem-style, with the "obstructionist" charge.

[Tom Bowler]

Republicans occasionally had the votes in committee to block a Clinton nominee. When they didn't, the appointment went to the floor where it received an up or down vote. The Democrats don't have the votes to block a nominee in committee. Instead they are blocking the vote using a cloture rule to require 60% approval to cut off debate on a topic. This is clearly not what the framers had in mind when they drew up the requirements for approval of judicial appointees.

I'm not in favor of rewriting the Constitution within the context of Senate rules. We voted for a president. In doing so we confer on him the prerogative to select appointees that he believes will perform their governmental duties in accordance with his governing philosophy, which by extension means in accordance with our philosophies since we voted for him. Appointments can be unpredictable, but my take is that Bush will avoid appointing judicial activists, which is not what the Democrats want. Democrats would like to appoint justices who will impose by judicial fiat what they are unable to enact legislatively, because they lack the votes to do it. Do you want your vote to count?

[Scott]

"Republicans occasionally had the votes in committee to block a Clinton nominee."

They were the majority party in the Senate from '94-'00 (correct?), so anytime all Republicans in the judiciary committee wanted to block a Clinton nominee, they could. Obviously, the clear difference is they had a majority then whereas the Democrats don't now, but the "obstructionist" charges Repubs are lobbing make them look weak. Use the obstsructionist charge to describe Dem instransigence on something that actually, truly matters, like social security, rather than when just 5% of nominees are not getting confirmed.

[Tom Bowler]

The difference really is that Democrats have taken an approach through Senate rules that clearly circumvents Advise and Consent as envisioned by the founding fathers. I would also differ with you on which is the more important, judicial nominations or financing of Social Security. Voter disatisfaction with progress on Social Security will light enough fires to take care of any obstuctionists from either side of the aisle.

[Scott]

Voter disatisfaction with progress on Social Security will light enough fires to take care of any obstuctionists from either side of the aisle.

Dissatisfactionrom the right, sure, from the center, and center-left, I don't think so. Obstructionism is a perfect charge right about now to get the moderates' attention.