It seems to me that Bob Dole is taking exactly the right tone regarding the so-called nuclear option:
I have publicly urged caution in this matter. Amending the Senate rules over the objection of a substantial minority should be the option of last resort. I still hold out hope that the two Senate leaders will find a way to ensure that senators have the opportunity to fulfill their constitutional duty to offer “advice and consent” on the president’s judicial nominees while protecting minority rights. Time has not yet run out.
But let’s be honest: By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.
This tradition has a bipartisan pedigree. When I was the Senate Republican leader, President Bill Clinton nominated two judges to the federal bench – H. Lee Sarokin and Rosemary Barkett – whose records, especially in criminal law, were particularly troubling to me and my Republican colleagues. Despite my misgivings, both received an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor and were confirmed. In fact, joined by 32 other Republicans, I voted to end debate on the nomination of Judge Sarokin. Then, in the very next roll call, I exercised my constitutional duty to offer “advice and consent” by voting against his nomination.
When I was a leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition…
If the majority leader, Bill Frist, is unable to persuade the Democratic leadership to end its obstruction, he may move to change the Senate rules through majority vote. By doing so, he will be acting in accordance with Article I of the Constitution (which gives Congress the power to set its own rules) and consistently with the tradition of altering these rules by establishing new precedents. Senator Frist was right this past weekend when he observed there is nothing “radical” about a procedural technique that gives senators the opportunity to vote on a nominee.
Although the Democrats don’t like to admit it, in the past they have voted to end delaying tactics previously allowed under Senate rules or precedents…
Democrats can rightly claim foul, because Orrin Hatch did change policies in 2003:
When Bush became president, Hatch, as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, decided he wanted to change the blue slip rule. Instead of allowing one senator from a state to block a nominee, Hatch required both senators from the same state to raise opposition. This, of course, made it significantly harder for Dems to block Bush
Hubris
Bob Dole is kickass. I generally like the Terry Gross program Fresh Air, but it was a pleasure recently hearing Dole rip her a new one about halfway through this interview when she tried to make the interview about Tom Delay instead of about his new book.
ppgaz
Bob Dole is a very nice man who never once in his political life has done anything, in the end, but ride for the brand.
Republicans who quite recently talked lovingly about filibusters now are shocked, SHOCKED that such tactics might be used against them.
Cut the crap. The filibuster exists because the body has woven it into the rule structure for quite a long time for reasons that have served various “sides” when those sides were in the minority.
Dole is embarassing, because you know from looking at him that he is a decent man. Is there nobody on the Republican side of the world right now who can look into a camera and speak an honest sentence? Like this:
“I was for filibusters when they were useful to my side, but I’m against them now when they are useful to my opponents.”
If you want me to buy something, you first have to convince me that you are honorable. If you can’t tell me the simple, obvious truth because doing so might embarass your “side” in a fight, then don’t talk to me. I’m sick of liars in politics, no matter which side they are on.
Speak the truth, Bob Dole, and I might vote for you even if you are a disgusting Repuglican. Lie to me, and I wouldn’t vote for you if you were Jesus H. Fucking Christ himself.
Kimmitt
95% confirmation rates are not “payback.”
John Cole
Those are the statistics I was talking about that both sides seems to have their own set of. Is that 95% ofthose who made it out of committee, or 95% of those nominated by the President?
Mr Furious
Bob Dole is a hatchet-man.
Now that that’s out of the way, on to what he said (and didn’t say).
Republicans filibustered the nominee for Chief Justice in 1968. Was Dole in the Senate then? I know Republicans like their Reagan-Era fantasy history, but events actually did take place before 1980, it would be nice if they could acknowledge them.
Dole blames the Democrats alone for the erosion of Senate comity and that is the biggest joke of all. The modification and, then elimination, of the blue-slip rule is actually a tactical nuclear first-strike in my opinion, and the reason why we are in the current standoff.
Mr Furious
I’m pretty sure that is 95% of Bush’s nominees. The clowns he re-nominated or recess-appointed were the guys who failed to make it out of committee.
I think.
John Cole
Bob Dole is not a hatchet man, and I think both sides share some guilt in this affair. Changing the rules- and that is all it is- changing the internal rules of the Senate- nothing mystical or magical, will make it a clear and level playing ground for everyone. I wish the old way still worked, but it clearly does not.
JG
I don’t care which side of the aisle you’re on. If you have to pick 200 nominees for anything then a couple of idiots will end up on the list. Isn’t that why they have to be confirmed? Not that the president was trying to get bad people on their but that a few mistakes may have been made?
Halffasthero
Disagree if you want with the opinions given on the “Nuclear Option” but Mr. Cole makes his points on the nominees civilly so please stay civil in kind. Although I don’t agree with everything he says, he makes more sense on this than a lot of people on BOTH sides of this argument.
peanutgallery
If I remember correctly…..Republicans prevented 60(yes, that would be sixty) of Clinton’s nominees from making it to the floor for a vote. Now they are pitching a right fit about 7?
The problem that I have with a straight majority up/down vote is this: In today’s political atmosphere….one that is COMPLETELY partisan….a straight up/down vote when 1 party has the Presidency AND the majority in Congress is THE SAME THING as allowing whoever the President nominates be automatically approved.
Right now the Republicans are in this position. Someday(soon, perhaps) it may be the Democrats.
I do not trust EITHER party with that much control over our courts.
If an up/down vote becomes the automatic right of each nominee…I believe that it should have to prove to be non-partisan. A simple majority should not suffice…perhaps a 2/3 approval? This way, no matter which party is in power we could be assured having the best men and women representing us on our courts.
I say again…I do not trust EITHER party to do the right thing for our country when they are in complete power. The minority party must have power as well.
Jon H
“Bob Dole is kickass. I generally like the Terry Gross program Fresh Air, but it was a pleasure recently hearing Dole rip her a new one about halfway through this interview when she tried to make the interview about Tom Delay instead of about his new book.”
Offtopic: The flipside of this would be a disgraceful episode during the Schiavo coverage.
Robert Schuller, minister or whatever, prominent television religious guy who holds forth from the ‘Crystal Cathedral’, was on MSNBC talking about the Schiavo case.
He used his appearance TO PLUG HIS NEW BOOK a couple of times. He wasn’t even on to talk about it.
I thought that was disgraceful.
But, the anchor, Dan Abrams, got in a dig at him for doing so. Which was sweet.
Steven
The 95% number is the percent of all nominees that have been confirmed, including District Court judges. The 60+% number the Rs use is the percentage of Court of Appeals nominees that have been confirmed.
Kimmitt
What Steven said. Of course, those numbers change as time passes; there’s a certain amount of chicken being played.
ppgaz
Oh, and working together with colleagues across the aisle is not “appeasement.”
It’s called “governing.”
“Democracy depends entirely on the submission of the minority” — William F. Buckley
J. Michael Neal
Are both sides partially to blame? Sure. This is a far cry from both sides being equally to blame. The Republicans started these shenanigans when there was a Democratic President. To say that it is all broken, and we should change the rules now that there is a Republican President is absurd; it gives the immediate reward to those most responsible for causing the problem.
Personally, I think that, given the nature of judicial appointments, it is much *more* justified to require 60 votes for confirmation than it is for regular legislation. If they are going to be appointed for life, they should have to pass with more than just a simple majority. However, I’m not unalterably opposed to changing the rules. If it’s going to be done, though, it should be done at some point after the current term. A change of rules voted now should take effect in 2009.