The Democrats’ Big Plan

National Review ^ | April 3, 2003, 9:10 a.m. | Byron York

[STOCKHRSE]

Although much attention has been paid to the filibuster of appeals-court nominee Miguel Estrada — just Wednesday , Republicans made yet another unsuccessful attempt to break the Democratic blockade on his nomination — there is in fact a far larger story taking shape, one that has gone mostly unreported in the press. Using a variety of complicated parliamentary techniques that attract little public notice, Democrats are now blocking nearly every Bush nominee to the federal circuit courts of appeals. Their actions suggest that party strategists have abandoned an earlier plan to stop a few, carefully selected Bush nominees. Now, they want to stop them all.

Since the new Senate convened in January, the president has nominated 19 candidates for the courts of appeals. At this moment, twelve of those nominees are being held up by Democratic opposition. Most of the rest are new nominations that haven't yet had time to be blocked. Just two have been confirmed. Estrada is, of course, caught in a filibuster. Fifth Circuit nominee Priscilla Owen, recently approved by the Judiciary Committee, is in pre-filibuster limbo. So is fellow Fifth Circuit nominee Charles Pickering, who has yet to come up for a new vote in the committee. Jeffrey Sutton and Deborah Cook, of the Sixth Circuit, and John Roberts, of the D.C. Circuit, are still awaiting floor votes after Democrats refused to allot time to debate their nominations. (In addition, Sutton has had a hold placed on his nomination by Democrat Tom Harkin, while Cook and Roberts are also under Democratic holds). Sixth Circuit nominees Richard Griffin, David McKeague, Susan Bieke Neilson, and Henry Saad have all been stopped by procedural tactics — the so-called "blue slip" — used by Michigan's two Democratic senators, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. Fourth Circuit Terrence Boyle has been blocked by North Carolina Democrat John Edwards. And the nomination of the Ninth Circuit's Carolyn Kuhl, who had a hearing on Tuesday, appears headed for a protracted fight over the opposition of California's Barbara Boxer.

Together, that makes twelve nominees paralyzed by Democratic opposition. Of the rest of the 19 Bush circuit-court nominees, five — Richard Wesley for the Second Circuit, Michael Chertoff for the Third Circuit, Edward Prado for the Fifth Circuit, Steven Colloton for the Eighth Circuit, and Consuelo Callahan for the Ninth Circuit — were nominated for the first time this year (most of them in March), meaning they have not had time to go through the process (or to develop serious Democratic opposition). Two nominees — Timothy Tymkovich of the Tenth Circuit and Jay Bybee of the Ninth — have been confirmed, Tymkovich nearly two years after his nomination.

In the cases that are currently blocked, some involve substantive issues — for example, a candidate who is thought to be insufficiently faithful to Roe v. Wade or "insensitive" to minority rights — while others are hung up on procedural objections. In one instance, Democrats are blocking three nominees (Sutton, Cook, and Roberts) because party leaders are angry at Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch for considering them all in one hearing instead of separate sessions. In another instance, Democrats are objecting to a nominee (Kuhl) because they say Republicans have given too little deference to blue-slip issues. In another (Estrada), Democrats say they haven't been given enough information to make a decision.

"This is an indication of what a determined minority can do in the Senate," says one Republican. "I wouldn't go so far as to say we're flummoxed, but we are dealing with a very obstructionist minority in the best way we can."

Responding to charges of obstruction, Democrats say that it was Republicans who practiced wholesale obstruction of judicial nominees when they controlled the Senate during the last six years of the Clinton administration. But by any measure, Democrats have blocked more Bush appeals-court nominees than were blocked by Republicans in even the worst of the Clinton years, when relations between the parties were poisoned by scandal and impeachment.

Of course, at that time, some in the GOP were advocating wholesale obstruction. But party leaders rejected the idea. "This is something Republicans could have done during the Clinton administration, but there were a lot of [Republicans] who wouldn't go that far, who for reasons of comity and the sake of the process refused to do it," says one party aide.

But now, GOP leaders face those very obstructionist tactics from Democrats and are growing increasingly frustrated. Republicans control the Senate, albeit narrowly, and party leaders and activists believe they ought to be able to confirm the president's judicial nominations. But Senate rules give the minority party substantial power, and the only thing that would discourage them from using that power would be negative public opinion — that is, if there were a real political price to be paid for their actions. So far, however, most of the judicial battles have drawn little attention. Some of the reasons for that are obvious: there are lots of other things happening in the world. But many of the blocked judicial nominations involve arcane rules that would not make the front page even on a slow news day.

For example, Levin's and Stabenow's move to kill a bloc of four circuit court nominees — an astonishingly bold act — has received almost no attention (See "Much More Democratic Obstruction"). It seems unreasonable to suggest that Levin and Stabenow could be pressured to back away without public opposition, yet it is difficult for the public to oppose what it doesn't know. So the four judges remain blocked.

It is not clear whether the new Democratic across-the-board blockade will ultimately succeed (although it is certainly succeeding at the moment). And it is true that the White House has other things to worry about now. But if the president wants to place judges on the federal courts of appeals, he will eventually have to engage Democrats in political battle — the only thing that can break the current stalemate.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Others have said that my brand of diplomacy is a bit harsh, too.

[Stand Watch Listen]

Related Articles: and past Senate Democrats’ obstructionism

Filibuster Si, Estrada No!
Source: Weekly Standard; Published: March 17, 2003; Author: Major Garrett

Talking Nonsense - The Senate Filibuster
Source: BreakPoint with Charles Colson; Published: March 13, 2003; Author: Mark Earley

Estrada & the Dream
Source: National Review Online; Published: March 12, 2003; Author: René Fonseca

President Calls for Action on Judicial Nominations
Source: White House Office of the Press Secretary Published: , March 11, 2003.

Miguel Estrada: The President Must Take His Case To The People
Source: CNSNews; Published: March 11, 2003; Author: Paul M. Weyrich

Left-Wing Democrat U.S. Senators Thwarting The Will Of 'We The People'
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: March 10, 2003; author: Wallace Honley

Estrada and the future of the judiciary
Source: Washington Times; Published: March 10, 2003; Author: Nat Hentoff

Supermajority Rules?: Why the Estrada filibuster is unconstitutional
Source: Wall Street Journal; Published: , March 8, 2003; Author: Douglas W. Kmiec

Barbara Stanley: Hillary Barks Her Marching Orders To Democrats: Bork Miguel Estrada!
Source: Toogood Published: March 7, 2003: Author: Barbara Stanley

Dems: We Don’t Really Want Answers from Estrada.
Source: National Review; Published: March 4, 2003; Author: Byron York

The Minority Democrats' War In The Senate For Control Of America
Source: Toogood Reports; Published: Febraury 28, 2003; Author: Mary Mostert

Senate Democrats: Filibusters Are No Longer Just For The Floor
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 28, 2003; Author: John Nowacki

Senator Leahy's Comments on Senate Floor against Estrada (26 Feb 2003) (Revised)
Source: The Congressional Record (New Search required each time); Published: 27 Feb 2003; Author: | Sen Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

Ted Kennedy's Grand Design
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 27, 2003; Author: Robert D. Novak

Linda Chavez: Republicans Need To Call Dems' Bluff On Estrada Nomination
Source: CNSNES.com; Published: February 26, 2003; Author Linda Chavez

Senate Democrats Can't Get Their Facts Straight
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: February 14, 2003; Author: John Nowacki

Estrada: Now It’s War
Source: National Review Online; Published: February 12, 2003; Author: Byron York

Leahy’s Surprise Attack
Source: National Review Online; Published: October 9, 2002; Author: Byron York

Shedded by Judiciary: Senate Democrats cast off another appointee
Source: Wall St Journal; Published: October 9, 2002

Miguel Estrada May be Next Victim Of Judiciary's 'Gang Of Ten'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: September 09, 2002; Author: Paul M. Weyrich

Toward Priscilla Owen, Not Even The Pretense Of Fairness
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: August 01, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

The Owen Nomination: Liberals Don't Let Truth Stand In Their Way
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: July 18, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

Democrats Hold Judicial Nominations for 406 Days and Counting
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: June 21, 2002; Author: Christine Hall

Judge The Senate Judiciary Committee Not By What It Says, But What It Has Done
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: | June 06, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

The Left Keeps Trying -- And Failing -- To Smear Brooks Smith
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: May 16, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

Pickering Battle Places Congress on Verge of 'Institutional Crisis'
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: March 07, 2002; Author: Jeff Johnson

Make them pay for 'Borking': David Limbaugh rebukes spineless Republicans to support Pickering
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: March 5, 2002; Author: David Limbaugh

The GOP's Post-Pickering Strategy
Source: National Review Online; Published: March 1, 2002; Author: Byron York

Pickering Fight Shows Liberals At Their Worst
Source: Roll Call.com; Publblished: February 21, 2002; Author: Mort Kondracke

Still Pestering Pickering
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 19, 2002; Author: John Nowacki

Dismantling Democracy through Judicial Activism
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: February 12, 2002; Author:Tom Jipping

'A Troubling Pattern': Ideology Over Truth In Judicial Confirmations
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: February 10, 2002; Author: Paul E. Scates

Democrats Blast Bush Judicial Nominee
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published: February 08, 2002; Susan Jones

The Next Big Fight: The first major judicial-confirmation battle of the Bush administration.
Source: National Review: Published: Feburary 6, 2002; Author:Byron York

SYMPOSIUM Q: Should the Senate Take Ideology into Account in Judicial Confirmations
Source: INSIGHT magazine; Published: February 4, 2002;
Authors:
Ralph G. Neas -- YES: The ideology of nominees for the federal judiciary matters more now than ever
Roger Pilon -- NO: Since judges apply law, not make it, the Senate's concern should be with judicial temperament

What is the Judiciary Committee Trying to Hide?
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: January 29, 2002; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Blasting Conservative Judges: Liberals Launch Their Campaign
Source: cnsnews.com; Published: January 24 2002; Author: Matt Pyeatt

Judicial Confirmation Lies, Deception and Cover-up
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: December 11, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Senator Leahy Does Not Meet His Own Standards
Source:.cnsnews.com; Published: December 07, 2001; Author: By John Nowacki

Senator Daschle Must Remove 'Leaky Leahy' From Judiciary Committee
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 4, 2001; Author: Rev. Louis P. Sheldon

A Disgraceful Blocking of Nominees
Source: The Wall Street Journal (ltr to ed) Published: December 3, 2001

Mr. Leahy's Fuzzy Math
Source: Washington Times;Published: December 3, 2001; Author: Editorial

Sen. Patrick Leahy; Our Constitutional Conscience?
Source: Too Good Reports; Published: December 2, 2001; Author: Paul E. Scates

Judicial confirmations called significantly low
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 30, 2001; Author: Audrey Hudson

Patrick Leahy - Words Do Kill
Source: PipeBombNews.com; Published: November 29, 2001; Author: William A. Mayer

Judicial Profiling
Source: The Wall Street Journal; Published: November 27, 2001

Sen. Leahy's judicial hostages
Source: Washington Times; Published: November 21, 2001

Judges Delayed is Justice Denied
Source: CNSNews.com ; Published: November 20, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Partisanship is Prevalent with Leahy's Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: November 15, 2001; Author: John Nowacki

Leahy And Daschle Are Coming Face To Face With Their Own Words
Obedient Democrats
Source: CNSNEWS.com; Published October 26, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

Why is Daschle Blocking Judges needed to Try Terrorists when we Catch them?
Source: Banner of Liberty; Published: October 26, 2001; Author: Mary Mostert

Pat Leahy's Passive Aggressive Game
Source: CNSNews.com; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: John Nowacki

Operation Obstruct Justice
Source: Washington Times; Published: October 25, 2001; Author: T.L.Jipping

Daschle wins struggle over judicial nominations
Source: The Washington Times; Published: Oct 24, 2001; Author: Dave Boyer

Leahy doctrine ensures judicial gridlock
Source: Washington Times; Published October 22, 2001

Senate's judicial powergrab: Tom Jipping tracks Dems' assault on courts
Source: WorldNetDaily.com; Published: June 28, 2001; Author: Tom Jipping

Dems Will Shut Down Judicial Confirmations
Source: CNSNews.com Commentary from the Free Congress Foundation; Published: June 13, 2001; Author: Thomas L. Jipping

[Maximum Leader]

From what I understand of Senate rules, there is one additional step required to use "the nuclear option"; once the President of the Senate (Cheney) makes a ruling, the Democrats can challenge it and then the ruling itself is voted on by the full Senate. It needs 50 votes and I imagine that Cheney himself breaks the tie.

So I think before the GOP makes that move, they have to make sure they have 50 GOP senators present and willing to REALLY piss off the Democrats.

[STOCKHRSE]

" Please, Father, God, break this logjam and leave rotten eggs all over all the obstructionist liberals. In Jesus' Name.

AMEN!

[STOCKHRSE]

THANKS! Great Post....

[STOCKHRSE]

" Others have said that my brand of diplomacy is a bit harsh, too."

Don't BEND...There comes a time for ALL methods....

[CA Conservative]

Does it requires 50 votes, or a majority of the senators present and voting? And since the Dems would be the ones challenging the ruling, wouldn't they have to come up with a majority, not the Republicans?

[Amalie]

AGREED!!!! Push hard NOW>>>>>

[Maximum Leader]

You've got me, I really don't know. I think Senate rules votes requires 50% plus 1 of the entire Senate, but I really don't know.

And your other point is correct, Cheney's vote would stand unless the Democrats can get the votes to override it. Since Cheney isn't going to break a tie against his own ruling, the Dems would have to come up with 51 votes.

The big part is for the GOP Senate caucus to be willing to piss over the Democrats to no end.

[CA Conservative]

The big part is for the GOP Senate caucus to be willing to piss over the Democrats to no end.

This statement is a bit confusing. It sounds like you are saying the GOP would piss off the Dems for no real purpose ("to no end"). Of course, another interpretation could be that the GOP would piss off the Dems unendingly.

Regardless, I agree that the Dems would be pissed off, but so what? Can they do more to frustrate the conservative cause that what they are doing now? They are pursing gridlock wherever they can right now. If we can eliminate some of that, I say go for it.

[Quix]

THANKS!

So if one puts to flight a thousand and 2 10,000

just the two of us ought to be able to have SOME prayer clout over 48? idiots?

Please join in, prayer warriors!

[Marysecretary]

Count me in, Quix. Let God handle these weasels. M

[Maximum Leader]

By "to no end" I meant unendingly.

I agree with you that the GOP should do this yesterday. I'm just afraid that some of our guys are too chummy with the Democrat senators.

[Quix]

HE'S THE ONLY ONE WITH THE PROPER CLOUT.

And, He's the only one who can touch them without getting His hands dirty.

YEA GOD!

[1Old Pro]

Sounds like the Mother of all plans....destined for failure

[Marysecretary]

You got that right, Quix! He sits in the heavens and laughs at the puny efforts of man to thwart His plans. Love, Mxxx

[Quix]

On occasion,

I have flashes of an impression that WE will look back with HIM on

all

this--earthly boot camp . . .

and laugh robustly

at all of it . . .

much as Navy sailors would look back at their boot camp and

laugh at ALL of it.

Seems crazy from this perspective.

But from the perspective of eternal Heaven?

We shall see!

[STOCKHRSE]

"Sounds like the Mother of all plans....destined for failure"

We have to see to it...I think...

[STOCKHRSE]

" One idea floated that has merit would be to have a Republican senator raise a point of order during the debate on Estrada, challenging the use of the filibuster against judges on Constitutional grounds. With Cheney sitting as president of the Senate, he could then rule that a filibuster on judicial nominees was out of order, and proceed to an up or down vote.

Wish they would just do it....Guess timing is everything...It seems like the longer they wait the "behinder" they get....IMHO.

I get the distinct impression the LEADERSHIP is skiddish on some important issues...Maybe it's just me...

[Devil_Anse]

Meanwhile, those seats go unfilled, right? Maybe it's time to try to simplify this problem and make an advertisement to inform the public. ( Is that not allowed? Have they blocked free speech yet? I can't remember.) How about a showing a bunch of empty seats and then the smiling faces of Levin and Stabenow? "The courts are clogged. They like it this way."

Don't forget what they do when it comes to U.S. Attorneys. If memory serves, the Fat-Hipped Rapist fired every U.S. Attorney in the country at one time. I might be mistaken about that, but I know one thing: there was this city with a corrupt mayor, see. That mayor was one small part of the machine which backed Clinton. So of course he delivered the votes to the Clintster. Before and during Clinton's first presidential election, this mayor was being investigated by the U.S. Attorney. Some convictions of his cronies had been won. Just in time, the Clintster got elected, and proceeded to get rid of the U.S. Attorney. The investigation was dead. Saved the mayor's corrupt butt in the nick of time.