A New Beginning? (David Ignatius on the "Great Compromise")

This week's Great Compromise over judicial nominations emerged thanks in part to a meeting that sounds a bit as if it took place in a wax museum. It was an atavistic scene that evoked the musty traditions of the Senate, but it also embodied the spirit of sweet reason the country needs now to solve its problems.

Gathered in an office just below the Senate floor last Thursday were two venerable, white-haired politicians clinging to the vanishing center: Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia, 87, and Republican Sen. John Warner of Virginia, 78. They had in hand copies of the U.S. Constitution and the Federalist Papers. With them was the Senate historian, Richard Baker.

The senators studied the archaic language of Federalist No. 66, written by Alexander Hamilton, to fathom what the Founders envisioned as the proper role of the Senate. Hamilton's essay focused on the Senate's role as a court for impeachments, but its larger concern was the proper balance between the executive and legislative branches. After much study, the two senators reached a simple conclusion: The Senate's famous power of advice and consent on judicial nominations is a two-way street. "Advice" means consultation with the president and give and take, rather than a partisan up-or-down vote.

What do we see in Federalist 66?

It will be the office of the President to NOMINATE, and, with the advice and consent of the Senate, to APPOINT. There will, of course, be no exertion of CHOICE on the part of the Senate. They may defeat one choice of the Executive, and oblige him to make another; but they cannot themselves CHOOSE, they can only ratify or reject the choice of the President.

But what do we see in the "Memorandum of Understanding"?

We believe that under Article II, Section 2, of the United Staes Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

And what do we see in Federalist 76?

The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have FEWER personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that." This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

There were factions arguing during the ratification debates that nominations should be made by a "council of appointment".

The founders rejected that, and were very clear as to why they rejected that.

I don't mind politicians claiming that doing exactly what the founders had found objectionable would be a good idea.

I do get bothered when said politicians claim that doing exactly what the founders explicitly stated to be objectionable would be exactly what the founders would have wanted. But politicians lie - it's what they do.

But I get outraged when reporters support them in those lies. When the politicians point at Federalist 66 and claim it says the exact opposite of what it does say, the reporter should call him on it - not congratulate him for his adherence to tradition.

The big question is whether Ignatius is complicit in the lie, or whether he's just lazy.

As a longtime student of the Federalist I compliment you on your accurate analysis. Either the reporter on this so-called story is ignorant of his subject, or he is lying through his teeth. Since ignorance explains much more of human failings than malice, I go with stupid.

John Warner never was one of the sharper tools in the shed. Whatever Robert Byrd may have been in the past, today he is clinging to sentience, not to traditions of the Senate or the Constitution. It is time to dip Harry in bronze and move him one flight down to the Statuary Hall in the Rotunda of the Capitol.

I will be mildly interested in whether the Washington Post even mentions this glowing article on the "Grand Compromise," when it blows up within a month over a Supreme Court nomination, if not before on a lower court nomination.

Did I miss anything?

For a much more honest article on the "Compromise," click below.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "The Gunfight at Not-OK Corral"

Warner and Byrd may have closeted themselves in a small room with the Federalist Papers, but, just like you can put two baboons in a cage with a copy of Shakespeare's Sonnets, that doesn't mean they can actually read them or understand them.

And in this case, when the baboons come out of the cage muttering nonsense and foolery you can be CERTAIN that they didn't understand.

Neither of these people deserve to be Senators. They aren't even qualified to sit on a local Library Board.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.