The GOP controlled Senate is taking steps to loosen the deathgrip Democrats have taken on the throat of Bush Judicial nominees. In a 10-0 vote today, the Senate Rules committee voted to approve an amendment to Senate rules which decreases the number of votes needed to end a filbuster each time a vote is called.
Interestingly, no Democrat member ofthe committee showed up to vote. Unfortunately for them, unlike in the Texas legislature, running and hiding wasn't enough to stop passage of the measure. Democrats deny that they boycotted the vote.
Next, the measure must go before the full Senate, although Majority Leader Frist has not said when he'll bring it up.
There's a game of brinksmanship going on here. The Dems are using the filibuster in an unprecedented effort to derail a sitting President's judicial nomination. Their opposition is not based on the worthiness of the candidate; Estrada for example got the ABA's highest rating. It's nothing more than partisan politics Now that the dems went nuclear, the reps are prepared to do the same, weakening the use of filibusters to block judicial nominations. While this measure is limited to judicial nomination filibusters, the threat to the filibuster in general is clear.
The minority party has two means of maintaining influence, compromise or obstructionism. Unwilling to compromise, gridlock has become the weapon of choice for the minority party. By limiting the ability of the minority party to obstruct the work of Congress, they may be forced into a more conciliatory mode of operation.
Frist is not eager to escalate the fight; the delicate balance of power between majority and minority is not toyed with lightly. But when excessive force is applied in one direction, it must be countered with a like force, or the balance is destroyed.
Dems now have a choice to make. Allow the nominations to proceed to the full Senate, and make their case there, or risk a permanent loss of power for the minority party.
Posted by Rich at June 24, 2003 1:52 PM | TrackBackGood points. Of course, if the dems regain control they get use of the same anti-filibuster rule.
Posted by: SayUncle on June 24, 2003 2:22 PM>>Their opposition is not based on the worthiness of the candidate; Estrada for example got the ABA's highest rating. It's nothing more than partisan politics.
While I can't speak to Estrada's qualifications, is it not just as likely that if he'd been much less qualified the Republicans would still be pushing him through - because the Party wants him approved - and the Democrats would be filibustering, this time in protest of his lack of qualifications?
I agree - party politics shouldn't play into this, but I'm willing to believe it would work both ways.
Posted by: Barry on June 24, 2003 2:23 PMExactly right uncle, which is why Frist doesn't want to push this through if he doesn't have to.
And Barry, the point is that Estrada is qualified, and the dems are blocking him anyway. That's the reality. If Estrada weren't qualified, then the situation is entirely different, and I would also oppose his nomination. The two cases are not parallel. A closer parallel would be a republican filibuster of a qualified dem judicial candidate.
That hasn't happened.
Posted by: rich on June 24, 2003 3:00 PMquestion: Who knows the rules about the required vote for passage of a change in the Senate Rules?
I think it is 2/3rds majority.
I don't think the committee vote matters at all.
Posted by: Barry Bozeman on June 25, 2003 4:20 PM