I feel like a bad American/voter for not knowing what the actual Senate judicial confirmation rules/process is. I read a lot about how each side of the equation has their own stance on the now infamous “up or down” vote (trying to be party neutral here since I don’t know enough on the issue). One side’s comments all make it seem like the judicial process has to result in a Senate wide up/down vote, or else we’re throwing out the Constitution. The other side doesn’t even reference up or down votes, but just says the judges in question are too outside the mainstream.
I’ve tried to look for the rules/procedure but haven’t found it, I’m pretty sure it exists somewhere. I also recall someone from ST in a post a week or more back giving what seemed like an almost factual explanation of the process. I can’t find this either.
So, does anyone actually know what the official rules/process/procedure is? I’m not clear if there has to be a Senate-wide vote on each candidate, or if the minimum is that the committee votes on the candidates and if they don’t get enough votes they don’t get out of committee. I can see how both of those possibilities could be correct, and how there might be other possible answers. But I want to know what the real situation is and what is actually required of the Senate.
Anyone?
EDIT: had to fix the subject.
The judicial candidates in question have already been approved by the Judiciary Committee. Normally, the candidate’s name would then go to the full Senate for a confirmation vote. The candidate only needs a 51-49 vote to get approved (or, in case of a tie wherein the VP (as President of the Senate) would vote, a 51-50 vote). Any senator can delay a floor vote by asking for more debate. This is called a “filibuster.” It takes 60 votes to end a filibuster, which is called “cloture.” In these cases, the Republicans do not have 60 votes, so they cannot force a floor vote. Their opinion is that the process as being used has resulted in creating a new requirement for a “super majority” of 60 votes to get a judge approved. Some Republicans are calling to an end of the filibuster/cloture process for judiciary approval only (but not for other types of legislation). However, Frist has been reluctant to go along, rightfully recognizing that such a move might come back to haunt Republicans in the future if the shoe is on the other foot.
The House and Senate “rules” are very arcane, and I am not really sure where they are published.
The first check is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee that holds hearings on nominations. If the leader (a member of the majority party) does not want to, there is no discussion of the nominee: it is DOA. Orrin Hatch did this on numerous occasions during the Clinton Administration. If there are hearings, then the committee votes to send the nominee to the Senate floor for debate (again, only if/when the committee chairman chooses: note the delay in the Bolton vote). If the committee votes to send the nominee on (and the majority party holds the majority of the seats on the committee; 10-8 right now, I believe), it goes to the Senate floor for debate; otherwise, it stops. I don’t know if the latter ever happens: if there’s a doubt, it doesn’t get that far, I think. The Senate vote is a simple majority wins: “the up/down” vote. However, it currently takes a supermajority (60?) to end a filibuster, so the minority party can still block an up/down vote by bringing the Senate to a standstill. The “nuclear option” is the threat by the Republican party to change that supermajority rule (by changing the parliamentary procedures, over which they have total control, rather than by Senate vote) to allow a simple majority to end filibuster in the case of judicial nominees.
My concern is that nobody is discussing the merits of a judicial nominee who can’t even muster 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster. Can’t the Administration find qualified people who can get 60% of the Senate to agree?
the filibuster is doing some republicans a huge favor. from what i have read, a couple of the nominees, namely owen and brown, would have a tough time being confirmed even without a filibuster. republican senators can support the pres/party by voting for cloture and not have to worry about how they’d vote on confirmation(where they might vote against). as long as the filibuster is around, they are protected from making the choice of whether to buck the party line…
“My concern is that nobody is discussing the merits of a judicial nominee who can’t even muster 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster. Can’t the Administration find qualified people who can get 60% of the Senate to agree?”
Now we enter the domain of the party whips. Yes, I believe that the nominees are all qualified. (My review of some of them indicates that they are not even as radical as some sitting judges, left and right, despite the rhetoric.) The question is of broader political implication. The Dem Whip is preventing rank and file Dems from signaling that they might vote for a particular nominee. Why?
Because the real fight is for the next Supreme Court spot. The Dems need to convince Il Presidente that they can maintain party discipline and are willing to block the process unless he submits compromise nominees. (read: will not mess with Roe, for example.)
Because the real fight is for the next Supreme Court spot. The Dems need to convince Il Presidente that they can maintain party discipline and are willing to block the process unless he submits compromise nominees. (read: will not mess with Roe, for example.)
Do you actually believe that the Bush Administration cares about the solidarity of the Democratic party on this issue? Do you actually believe that they will put forward any SC nominee who is not exactly what they want in such a nominee? Notice how many of the first term filibustered nominees were re-nominated in this second term. The current Administration is the Scorched Earth branch of the Republican party: there will be no compromise nominees for the SC. Guaranteed.
“Do you actually believe that the Bush Administration cares about the solidarity of the Democratic party on this issue?”
No, I don’t, but you misunderstand. It is the Dems who need to maitain solidarity in the face of Repubs.
“Do you actually believe that they will put forward any SC nominee who is not exactly what they want in such a nominee? Notice how many of the first term filibustered nominees were re-nominated in this second term.”
Yes, I believe that Rove will factor his estimate of Dem strength in his calculation of how radical a first choice can be advanced. Proof of this is the fact many, though not all were renominated. To me, this is evidence that the Reps behavior can be moderated. (Of course, there could be other reasons for not being renominated.
“The current Administration is the Scorched Earth branch of the Republican party: there will be no compromise nominees for the SC. Guaranteed.”
I believe that is the image they project, but I don’t think it is the reality. Politics is the art of the possible. For example, you are not going to see R. Bork nominated although he is supremely qualified. Just too much baggage.