Posted on 07/07/2003 7:56:28 AM PDT by Theodore R.
Is GOP's heavy hand the American way? By James W. Brosnan BrosnanJ@shns.com July 7, 2003
WASHINGTON -
The July 4 holiday should remind us that we fought for our independence because a king and his parliament refused to allow a minority of his subjects to have a say about their taxes and courts.
Perhaps the Republican majority in Congress needs a refresher course in American history.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and Rules Committee chairman Trent Lott (R-Miss.) are trying to weaken the rule on filibusters - a tactic for delaying or blocking Senate action by making long speeches - so President Bush can get his judicial nominees through the Senate without needing to win even one Democratic vote.
"The process of confirming nominees has grown more troublesome and corrosive of the public trust," Frist said in arguing for a rule change that would gradually reduce the number of votes needed to break a filibuster on a nominee from 60 (out of 100) to 51.
Does the record justify such a drastic change?
The Senate has confirmed 132 of Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats defeated two nominees, Charles Pickering of Mississippi and Priscilla Owen of Texas, both for seats on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in the Judiciary Committee last year.
This year Democrats have blocked the full Senate from voting on Owen and Miguel Estrada for seats on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. Pickering will meet a filibuster, too, but Lott is unlikely to press for a vote without a rule change.
You can debate the merits of each case, but Democrats have not conducted wholesale sabotage of Bush's appointments.
To his credit, Frist has been fair and patient in allowing Democrats to propose amendments to major legislation on the Senate floor, in contrast to the iron hand of Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), the House majority leader.
In the House, the Rules Committee decides what amendments can be offered to bills on the floor, to prevent the chaos that would ensue if all 435 members could offer amendments. An "open" rule permits all amendments; a "closed" rule does not.
After years of chafing under closed Democratic rules, Republicans vowed that 70 percent of the rules would be open after they took over the House in 1995. That promise has gone the way of term limits, a balanced budget and the line-item veto.
Of the 52 rules governing debate in the House this year, all but six were closed. Often the Rules Committee meets on short notice and late at night. Twenty-five rules were adopted as "emergency rules" to get around provisions that require members to get two days' notice of committee meetings, and 22 rules were reported after 8 p.m.
Democratic amendments are routinely blocked from floor consideration. Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) was not allowed to offer an amendment that would allow Tennesseans who itemize their federal income taxes to deduct sales taxes they pay.
Rep. Harold Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.) was refused the chance to propose an alternative to outright repeal of the estate tax. Ford wanted to exempt all estates of less than $7.5 million, tax estates of as much as $50 million at a 25 percent rate, and tax estates exceeding $50 million at a 30 percent rate. But the House and the American people were denied this debate.
NO CASE IS MORE egregious than the Rules Committee's refusal to allow votes on amendments proposed by Rep. John Tanner (D-Tenn.) to the Medicare prescription drug bill and the child tax credit bill. Both were modeled on measures approved by Senate Republicans.
Had the House been permitted an up-or-down vote on Tanner's child credit measure, there's little doubt it would have passed. Millions of low-income families would be getting the $400-per-child payment that now goes to wealthier families that pay taxes under Bush's latest tax cut.
Tanner said a closed rule "thwarts the will of half of the people in the country, roughly, and doesn't allow the legislative branch to function."
"They're complaining because they're in the minority and we're in the majority," said Jo Maney, spokesman for Rules Committee chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.). She said the Rules Committee exists to advance the agenda of the majority.
She noted Democrats are permitted one motion to recommit a bill to committee with instructions to make changes. But debate on such motions is limited to 10 minutes, as opposed to an hour of debate on a full substitute. Moreover, that restriction tends to limit members' options to either an extreme Republican or an extreme Democratic choice, not the alternatives favored by moderates such as Tanner.
"In a legislative body, only the majority can make things truly bipartisan," Tanner said. "Sooner or later the arrogance of that kind of leadership, in my view, will topple the leadership. It did to the Democrats and it will to the Republicans."
James W. Brosnan is Washington bureau reporter for The Commercial Appeal. You can call him at (202) 408-2701
This omission is critical. The filibuster rule (Senate Rule XXII) requires 60 votes to shut off debate. So, when that is used against a judicial nominee, the Constitution is violated. 60 is more than 51 -- Duh!
So, what the Republicans are seeking to do in the Senate concerning judicial nominees is to OBEY THE CONSTITUTION. That point is entirely lost on this "reporter" who publishes the Democrat talking points without mentioning the Constitution.
Congressman Billybob
Perhaps the Republican majority in Congress needs a refresher course in American history.
Yeah, well,all the Congress-critters could use that, along with a crash course on The Constitution, Declaration of Independence and The Bill of Rights, as far as I"m concerned.
FMCDH
Pardon me, Mr. Brosnan, but the LIV was passed. It was then declared unconstitutional.
Michael
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.