Talent Solves Democrat Judge Obstructionism

rushlimbaugh.com ^ | May 6, 2003 | Rush Limbaugh

[livesbygrace]

May 6, 2003

On Monday, a caller told me, "If it weren't for you out there leading the charge, whatever Bush wants to do domestically would be DOA. I can't find the Republican leadership anywhere." Sadly, I know what he means. It's best illustrated on judges. The GOP leadership is whining away about how they just don't have any power to get the judges confirmed, and yet they do. They are in the majority - by one vote.

We have a couple of Republicans who are off the reservation, but that wouldn't matter were it not for the total unanimity of the Democrats in opposition to what's good for the country. An e-mailer called me "stupid" if I don't get that the GOP runs the Senate. Oh, I get it. It's the Republicans who are supposedly in power that don't "get" anything. The exception is newly minted Jim Talent, senator from Missouri. He has a great idea on how to stop the Democratic attempts to keep the judiciary packed with Clinton judges.

It doesn't involve recess appointments or any of that. It uses the rules of the Senate! Paul Weyrich details the problem as being that the Republicans worry about what's written on the New York Times editorial page, failing to realize that newspapers don't drive opinion the way they used to. USA Today is the #1 paper, and the conservative New York Post is fast rising. Weyrich points out that all the major news websites are conservative - ahem, ahem. Weyrich describes Talent's solution:

"After a cloture vote is lost for lack of 60 votes [to break a filibuster], a senator would move to appeal the vote on the grounds that it is unconstitutional....the Constitution is very clear about when super-majorities are required. Judges isn't one of them. The parliamentarian would most likely rule the motion out of order.... His ruling would be appealed and if all 51 Republican Senators held together, his ruling would be overridden. Thus having taken back control of the process, the Senate Majority Leader would move to have the pending nominations considered..." Let's hope it happens, folks. The nation needs those judges - and we have the votes to get them confirmed.

[livesbygrace]

Sounds good to me...

[Lurking Libertarian]

Even Republican Senators want to keep the Filibuster in the Senate rules, for the next time there is a Democratic president.

[Theodore R.]

I always thought that young Talent was among the most talented of the GOP leaders. His idea is brilliant and should be inflexibly pursued. But will the top guns be too fearful to challenge Daschle and the Dakota Democrats? I sometimes wonder if the GOP senators even care if the conservative judges get confirmed. Yet, they are in a stalemate, and Talent has the potential way out.

Thanks, MO, for giving us Jim Talent.

[thinktwice]

Ping!

[fightinJAG]

What if one of the filibustered nominees sued? A little wacky, but the situation is so ridiculous, all options must be considered.

[Restorer]

Even Republican Senators want to keep the Filibuster in the Senate rules, for the next time there is a Democratic president.

The Senate can make whatever rules it wishes.

They could, for instance, rule out filibusters on judicial nominations (except perhaps for a strictly limited period) while leaving them in place for all other issues.

This shouldn't worry Republicans since they never used the filibuster to oppose Democratic nominations anyway.

Has anybody noticed that this same approach could be used to derail a President's Cabinet choices, forcing him to appoint aides acceptable to a minority of Senators?

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[fightinJAG]

Well, for that matter, why don't the 51 Republicans + like-minded Rats pass a law requiring a floor vote for all judicial nominees? If that's too straightforward, they could impose conditions such as failure of cloture x number of times or whatever.

[You Dirty Rats]

Or the last time. Remember how Bob Dole jammed up President Clinton & her husband with 43 senators?

Ol' Bob held the fort in 1993-4 until we got the majority in the 1994 election.

Clearly, the 'Rats are abusing the filibuster by applying it to judicial nominees, but there is no way the Senate is going to eliminate the filibuster. "Senate Rules" are the only thing that keeps these Senators from becoming -- the horrah! -- House members!

[Always Right]

Even Republican Senators want to keep the Filibuster in the Senate rules, for the next time there is a Democratic president.

Yes, but the Democrats will pull this stunt and have the filibuster ruled unconstitutional and outmanuver the GOP once again.

[Dog Gone]

The Senate has always had the power to amend its rules. The filibuster is purely a concoction of the Senate. It has no constitutional basis.

Unless the Senate rules require a supermajority to amend (and they might--I don't know), then the Republicans should simply vote that filibusters do not apply to nominations.

Talent's scenario would work also.

[RAT Patrol]

BTTT!

[kevkrom]

Of course, there's also the issue that the Democrats' filibustering of these candidates, especially Estrada, makes for some very interesting anti-Rat campaign material. Espeically in swing states with high Hispanic poluations (e.g., Florida).

[Stay the course]

... the Constitution is very clear about when super-majorities are required. Judges isn't one of them.

Passing bills doesn't require a super-majority either. Neither does approving amendments or budgets. Once the precedent is set, and the Democrats get a majority again, what's to stop them from using the same procedure to never allow Republican filibusters on anything, including bills, amendments, and budgets, even if Republicans only apply it to appointments?

[jimbokun]

"Once the precedent is set, and the Democrats get a majority again, what's to stop them from using the same procedure to never allow Republican filibusters on anything, including bills, amendments, and budgets, even if Republicans only apply it to appointments?"

Um, we end up with democracy?

[Lady Eileen]

bump...thanks for the post.

[Stay the course]

I'm not necessarily saying it would be a bad thing, just that we should be clear: we're not just talking about a clever procedural trick to require votes on judicial nominees. We're potentially talking about doing away with the filibuster altogether.

[Gurn]

It takes a "super-duper" majority to change Senate rules. Three-fourths, I believe.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

Go Talent ! He may not have a fishing license but he's making waves in Washington.

[nickcarraway]

ping