[Congressman Billybob]

I just submitted an article on this very subject, to be published by a Washington think tank in about two weeks. The bottom line is this: other than the one instance of a bipartisan filibuster of Johnson's nomination of Justice Fortas to move up to Chief Justice, the filibuster has not been used on judicial nominees.

That means one exception in 214 years to the general rule that judicial nominees are approved or rejected by a majority vote in the Senate. Applying the filibuster means the Senate is amending the Constitution by force -- requiring 60 Senators to do what requires only 51 Senators per the Constitution.

There are two ways to solve this problem, not just for the Estrada and Owen nominations, but for all time. One way is to amend Senate Rule XXII (the Cloture Rule) to exempt judicial nominees. The other way is for a Senator to raise a Point of Order that Rule XXII cannot apply to a judicial nominee (because it alters the required vote). Then, Dick Cheney in the Chair as President of the Senate can rule that the filibuster cannot be applied to judicial nominees.

Points of Order are NOT debatable. And, any ruling of the Chair stands unless it is rejected by a majority of the Senators. That would be game, set and match, and the filibuster would no longer apply to ANY judicial nominee, now or in the future.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, now up on UPI, and FR, "I Believe" (1957-2003)

Latest book(let), "to Restore Trust in America."

[spokeshave]

"The other way is for a Senator to raise a Point of Order that Rule XXII cannot apply to a judicial nominee (because it alters the required vote). Then, Dick Cheney in the Chair as President of the Senate can rule that the filibuster cannot be applied to judicial nominees."

seems simple to me...so why don't they do it....?

[Bubba_Leroy]

One way is to amend Senate Rule XXII (the Cloture Rule) to exempt judicial nominees.

What is required to amend SR XXII? I assume that the democRATs could stop an amendment of the rule through a filibuster. Am I correct?

Also, what is required to eliminate the "gentleman's agreement" that allows the democRATs to mount a filibuster simply by saying that they intend to do so? If they want to filubister, they should be forced to hold the floor until they drop.

[John123]

filibuster would no longer apply to ANY judicial nominee, now or in the future.

Your article on dealing with the Democrat filibuster of WH nominees is interesting. However, it is a double-edged sword. Future Democratic Presidents with a Democratic majority in the Senate can ram very liberal and controversal judges through the nomination process. I wonder if this is the precise reason the Republicans haven't used the two methods you described.

[ken5050]

As always, I enjoyed you essay. If I may, I'd like to suggest a topic for a future column. To wit, what's the likelihood of an open Dem convention? As one who, as a teenager, first became fascinated with politics during the 1960 Dem primary season...that was the last convention where it wasn't locked up until Kennedy offered LBJ the VP slot....looking at the Dem 9, and yes, I watched the debate this week, I think most of the conventional political wisdom is way wrong....I think that NO ONE comes close to a majority before the convention...which leads to a lot of really interesting permutations..but this time out, we don[t have the bosses controlling the back-room deals...so, what could happen?...A last minute surge for Gore, or would Hillary orchestrate a "draft-me" movenment at the end, if she thought that W was vulnerable?...And it might be harder to swing any deal this time, because of the various rules under which delegates are bound to a priamry winner for a certain number of ballots....

[lasereye]

Daschle would say he's "saddened that the Republicans have decided to ram through Judicial appointees without a debate".

[RAY]

Billybob - just do it!

[RinaseaofDs]

Sir, does that basically mean that we are waiting on this for the right time to waive our nominees through?

Seems to me that we can have our cake and eat it to: force the Dems to go on the record against qualified women and Hispanics for the appeals courts going into 2004, and still get our nominees through to the floor for a vote.

This also means that as far as we R's go, this is a non-issue. Correct?

[freekitty]

Thank you Congressman Billybob.

[Former Proud Canadian]

So why don't they take your advise and implement "PLAN B" sounds good to me.

[TLBSHOW]

bttt