Again, I think judges should just be voted on, yet I also am worried about the ramifications of breaking the tradition the Senate has followed for years. However, I find all this talk of compromise to be silly for several reasons:
1.) This is not something either side wants resolved with compromise, because both sides want their way and both sides want the issue. Democrats want to block the judges, alternately, they think it is in their political interest to paint all Republicans as extremists.
Republicans want to have these judges rammed through, and barring that, are perfectly content to paint all Democrats as obstructionist.
In the weird world of Washington, particularly with this case, compromise is not in the self interest of either party.
2.) I am probably going to regret giving Democrats this talking point, but for the life of me, I don’t know why the Democratic response to talks of compromise hasn’t been something along the following:
Talking Head: What about reports of a compromose on the issue of judical nominees? Are you making any progress?”
Sen. Reid: Compromise? The Senate has confirmed X judges (I don’t know the exact number), and we are only blocking a few extremists- to be exact, ten. In my world, that is a compromise.
Or something like that. It seems to me with our lapdog media, that would resonate in the meme circles. Are the Democrats just this incompetent?
over it
Actually, isn’t the number now only 7?
I read somewhere(may have been here) where someone said that it should go to a vote but should require more than a simple majority. Something like 60, or 2/3. That way no matter which party is the majority it would always be a non-partison appointment.
I think that that is fair. I do not want Way Right or Way Left judges running things. I want fair moderate ones with the interest of the nation as a whole in mind.
Just my 2 cents(or less).
jcricket
John – The Democrats have been using that talking point (the we’ve confirmed 205 out of the 215 nominated judges) line. They haven’t even called it a compromise, because it’s really been giving the Republicans what they want.
I understand that you come from a conservative point of view, but it’s a false equivalency to compare the Republicans and Democrats in this case.
The fact is, that the Democrats are only doing what the Republicans have done in the past, while the Republicans are attempting to whitewash history and are lying about the facts. Republicans are lying and claiming they never obstructed and/or filibustered judges. Republicans are trying to claim this is a war on faith. Republicans gut the ethics rules. Republicans are threatening judges.
Your (former) friends are far more responsible for the escalation of rhetoric and threats to America than the Democrats/liberals are.
I’m not saying there are no unhinged liberals, but they don’t have the power of Rove, Frist, Delay, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. We’re not the ones trying to turn this country into a theocracy. We’re not the ones conducting a war on science. We haven’t called your side traitors, baby rapists, etc.
Frankly, I think the media is at fault for presenting to the public that each side is equal in these debates, by distorting the whole notion of balance for some time now. Balance used to mean evaluating both sides of an issue and presenting them along with the appropriate caveats, depending on the facts.
Now it means reporting each side as if they are equally valid (like creationism and evolution).
I know you’re not going to suddenly convert to a “Barney Frank liberal” because of the recent actions of the Republican party, but I think the problems are deeper than even you have been claiming, and the left is absolutely not equal to the right in creating and sustaining the problem.
Mr.Ortiz
Umm, I think that was the talking point for the last year or so, it never got any traction. Maybe, being Democrats, they were never able to put it quite so succinctly.
The new talking point is more aggressive, in keeping with Harry Reid’s style. It points out that Republicans kept 60 popular Clinton nominees from being voted on, which should (but won’t) shut up those who imply that there is an uninterrupted 200 year tradition of giving every judicial nominee a vote. The only reason some of the seats in question are even open is that Clinton’s nominees were never given a vote.
Democrats have resorted to the filibuster because they don’t have the votes to keep the nominees bottled up in committee. Each party promotes and defends its own agenda by any means legal. The Nuclear Option is another expression of that fact. Republicans are welcome to try it.
Jason
I think that that is fair. I do not want Way Right or Way Left judges running things. I want fair moderate ones with the interest of the nation as a whole in mind.
A bigger endorsement for judicial mediocrity you’ll never hear.
Here’s how I see it… I have no problem with stocking the judicial branch with so-called extremists from both sides of the aisle, as well as the moderates. The most important things to me is jurisprudential excellence. I want the best and the brightest manning the courts, and as long as we continue to demonize the Borks, Pickerings and Estradas as extremists who have no right to sit on the bench, we’re embarking on a journey of diminishing returns for the judicial branch. We’re reaching a point where mediocrity is all we’ll get on the bench, because if you’ve published or said anything that can be regarded as controversial, non-PC or politically loaded, you’re radioactive in the confirmation process.
I would love to see a Supreme Court with Robert Bork and Larry Tribe duking things out. But I don’t have a litmus test that goes beyond getting the most brilliant legal minds on the bench, regardless of their political stripe.
As for the so-called war on the judiciary? It’s been going on well before Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube was first inserted. Congress declared war on the judiciary almost 20 years ago – and to pretend that one party is less culpable than the other for the current situation is laughably naive.
Christie S.
I, personally, favor Tri-bunal forms of courts. By tri-bunal I mean… one con, one mod and one lib.
Everyone equal. Limit them to 40 years on a court bench. That’s pretty much a lifetime appointment anyway, but if you live to be Methuseleh’s (sp) age, you gotta give up your seat. No draws allowed. 2 vs 1 or unanimous.
Oh, hey…don’t we already have one of our court systems sorta set up like this already? ::snark::
Seriously though, IMO, the upper courts should have the seated judges representative of all sides. That way everyone is heard and the fantasy of “neutral courts” may not actually be such a fantasy after all.
And I apologize in advance to any that this might offend, I don’t see how a court system that rules in the best interest of the country AS A WHOLE can be considered mediocrity.
We ARE a country that is divisive, partisan, contrarian and loud. I’ve got news for some of you. We always have been. Read the Federalist Papers that have been brought back onto the mainstream reading list. Read the private memoirs of our founders. These boys did NOT play nice.
When they finished duking it out about setting up the running of our government, they tried their damndest to make sure that the judiciary would not be stacked with judges from only ONE viewpoint. That was the whole point behind the “neutral judiciary”.
What’s best for the country as a whole, NOT what judgements serve one side the best.
Anyway, I’m off to make lunch. Time to feed the kidlet.
Kimmitt
Maybe, being Democrats, they were never able to put it quite so succinctly.
Or maybe the media, being the media, is kinder to Republican talking points than Democratic talking points. Or both.
Thomas
Since when is there a long tradition in the Senate of filibustering judges who would, if a vote were allowed, be approved?
It’s unprecedented.
KCinDC
I don’t understand the bit about the “lapdog media”. The media are lapdogs for the administration, so why would that make a Democratic talking point resonate?
John Cole
KC- The media repeat whatever they are fed, whetehr it is a conservative administration or a liberal one. They are lazy.
Tom- The act may be unprecedented, that the Senate rules have allowed it forever is not.
Mr.Ortiz
Thomas, here’s some light reading for you:
http://democrats.senate.gov/~dpc/pubs/107-2-285.html
It is disingenuous for Republicans to now claim that all judicial nominees should get votes on the floor of the Senate after they blocked scores of judicial nominees from ever receiving a Committee hearing or a vote.
Most of Clinton’s nominees would have been approved if a vote had been allowed. What’s so outrageous about using the filibuster over other, more obscure procedural methods?
Thomas
John, sure, and the Senate rules have always been amendable by a bare majority, but that power has never been used. It’s no more of an escalation than the unprecedented use of the filibuster.
Al Maviva
The overall number of judges matters little, if you are going to count bankruptcy trustees, magistrates and administrative law judges as Article III judges. You must compare apples to apples. Just because the Democrats approved of Judge Rheinhold’s movies, doesn’t mean he counts as a Judge approved by the Senate.
With respect to appellate judges, the percentage of confirmed nominees are:
Bush 41 – 78 percent confirmed Clinton – 74 percent confirmed Bush 43 – 67 percent confirmed
Keep in mind, for most of their terms in office, Bush 41 and Clinton were up against a Senate controlled by their adversaries. That a sitting President is being afflicted with a lower confirmation rate than ever before, courtesy of the party out-of-power and the abuse of a procedural filibuster rule, is outrageous. Ted Kennedy’s face would be red, and he’d be talking loudly and insensibly if this was happening to a Democratic president… hey, wait a minute… maybe that’s not the best comparison.
Trying to assign blame for this to either party is futile, since both have dirty hands. Since Kennedy led the borking of Judge Bork, each party has engaged in tit-for-tat, with each party escalating the warfare. The Democrats happen to be occupying the lowest rung in the gutter right now, but I’m sure the Republicans will sink even deeper the next time we have a Dem president, if this doesn’t stop.
I don’t know why the left is angry about the Republicans maybe doing away with procedural filibuster. Calling it “political” may be the most ironic insult I’ve ever heard. The law became expressly political when judges started straying far from the black letter text of the statutory and decisional law, mainly in the late 60’s through the present. Once the left authorized judges to rule in accordance with their conscience and will (rather than sticking to the plain language meaning of the text, as was the norm for hundreds of years) the political leanings and inclinations of the judiciary became the most important factor in determining how key cases would turn out. I understand that it is necesary, since the left can’t muster the votes for its agenda either directly from the people, or from their elected representatives, so they have to own the courts in order to push their public policy choices through. This in turn has led a substantial number on the right to chuck it in on textualist judges, and look more for judges of a conservative political temperament, just as the left applies their political litmus test.
So call it what it is – a fight between people who unanimously think a judge should be guided by conscience, versus a group of people, only some of whom feel that way.
Dan S.
“With respect to appellate judges, the percentage of confirmed nominees are:
Bush 41 – 78 percent confirmed Clinton – 74 percent confirmed Bush 43 – 67 percent confirmed . . . That a sitting President is being afflicted with a lower confirmation rate than ever before, courtesy of the party out-of-power and the abuse of a procedural filibuster rule, is outrageous.”
So 74% vs. 67%? 7% points isn’t insignificant, but still . . .
The important point for me is the suitability (in the broad and political sense) of these judges. How does the overall quality and relative extremism of Clinton-era judicial rejects compare to the Bush bunch?
Kimmitt
I’ve been poking around on this, and I noticed that 9 of Bush’s nominees for Circuit Court haven’t even had a hearing. This almost certainly isn’t the Democrats’ fault; the Republicans have the chairmanship of the Committee on the Judiciary, and the new blue slip rules make it unlikely that that is the cause. How many of these numbers are inflated by the fact that the Republicans are deliberately holding up the confirmation of uncontroversial nominees to force a crisis?