This from Howard Bashman's How Appealing blog, linked in our margin.
Sunday, October 24, 2004
In Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Vice President and Mrs. Cheney speak about judicial nominations: The following comes from a transcript of remarks at a town hall meeting yesterday afternoon:
Q Mr. Vice President and Lynne, thank you for being here, first of all. My question really is with regards to the Senate rules that are really circumventing the appointments of our President. In doing so, are they really serving their constitutional role? And if not, and there has been some question raised about this by members of the Senate, why has not something been done? And if it is being done, would you speak to that? And is there a serious effort to ameliorate this?
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Talking now about appointments to the federal bench? Yes. Yes, it is a problem. And it has developed just in this last Congress. Specifically, the Constitution provides for us, for the President to nominate judges to go on the federal bench. And the Senate is charged with the responsibility to advise and consent on those nominations. Historically, for nominees to the federal bench, all that was required was a simple majority vote. You get 51 votes in the Senate today, you ought to get confirmed.
What has happened is the Democrats have decided to pick out and oppose a certain number of nominees, and to use the filibuster to block their approval. Filibuster under the Senate rules requires 60 votes, instead of just a simple majority of 51. And so, in effect, they've imposed a new requirement by using the filibuster to block judicial nominees. Historically, that has not been the case. That is the filibuster has generally been viewed as not applying to judicial appointments. And the motive that is behind it, I think, because of the individuals that they've picked out tend to focus on the appellate courts, the circuit courts of appeal around the country. We've worked out arrangements in many cases to get district court judges confirmed. But others we've not been able to get on the circuit court of appeals. And they're keeping some remarkable people off the bench. I can think of Janice Rogers --
MRS. CHENEY: Janice Rogers Brown.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Janice Rogers Brown from California. She is a member of the California State Supreme Court. She is an African American, the first African American woman on the California State Supreme Court. She's got a great personal story -- daughter of sharecroppers, got an education, worked her way through school, and has done a superb job -- generally viewed as eminently qualified. And they've decided to block her nomination.
MRS. CHENEY: Miguel Estrada.
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Miguel Estrada is another one. Miguel Estrada is a man who was born in Honduras, came to this country, learned English, went to school, worked his way through Harvard Law, was editor of the Harvard Law Review, held a prominent post in the Justice Department under both Clinton and Bush administrations, and he, too, has been blocked from a circuit court appointment requiring a filibuster to let him through. These are people who can easily get 53, 54, 55 votes, but because they can't get 60 votes, because the Democrats have approached it on a block, they're kept from doing it.
A good friend of mine, a man named Bill Myers, used to work for my colleague Al Simpson from Wyoming, has been working in Idaho, was nominated to the Ninth Circuit. He's been blocked. He had 55 votes cold on the floor, but they wouldn't let it come to a vote because they used the filibuster. He was nominated to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit was the circuit that recently handed down the decision that said when we pledge allegiance to the flag, we can't say "under God."
AUDIENCE: Booo!
THE VICE PRESIDENT: Yes. Sounds to me like they could use some new judges on that circuit. (Applause.)
There are a couple of solutions. One is elect more Republican senators. I think that helps. (Applause.) There are other -- there are some procedural moves that have been contemplated from time to time, in terms of a challenge on the floor of the Senate that basically would involve moving to change the rules of the Senate and do that by a majority vote, in effect, specifically exempting judicial nominations from the filibuster rule. That would probably -- some people call that the, sort of the nuclear option, that would start an amazing battle on the floor of the Senate. Some of us think there's a certain appeal to that kind of an approach. (Applause.)
***
RS COMMENT:
That's one side of the story.
The current conservative Republican Administration has a constituency it needs to serve for political reasons: it put them in office for a reason, to effect certain changes, and they expect results in return for further support.
In opposition are the Democrats, who also have a constituency to serve for the same reasons.
That's what politics is.
The power to obtain, or block, results.
Litmus test issues today are abortion, repeal of Roe v. Wade, 'liberal' decisions such as freedom for gays, as in Lawrence v. Texas, the sodomy or liberty decision, depending how you care to characterize it.
I prefer liberty, because Lawrence protects all, not just gays, from the tyranny of the majority respecting private consensual intimate adult relations.
Lawrence keeps the long nose of the neighbors, acting through government out.
Government should be too busy dealing with Al Qaeda to have time for Mr. Lawrence.
That bloc of some 45 Democrats is trying to prevent the repeal of Roe v. Wade through the appointment of more Clarence Thomases. Justice Thomas swore he had no position on Roe, which made him either ignorant or lying, and he's far too smart not to have known all about Roe that he needed, to wit: it was the 3rd rail that would derail his candidacy if touched.
The Dems aren't going to let another candidate get away with that ploy; hence the filibuster, to insure moderate candidates.
Does the White House have a litmus test?
Do elephants have four legs and a trunk?