Filibuster Compromise .:. grubbykid.com

Filibuster Compromise

This just in, the AP is reporting of a Compromise on Senate Filibusters:

These officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the agreement would clear the way for yes-or-no votes on some of Bush's nominees, but make no guarantee.

Under the agreement, Democrats would pledge not to filibuster any of Bush's future appeals court or Supreme Court nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances."

For their part, Republicans agreed not to support an attempt to strip Democrats of their right to block votes.

Under the agreement, Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, nominated to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, would advance to a final confirmation vote.

Here is a Copy of the Compromise. (pdf) (Update: the full text of the MoU is available after the fold.)

Ramesh Ponnuru on The Corner says:

So: Democrats can filibuster nominees in "extraordinary circumstances," to be determined according to the "discretion and judgment" of Ralph Neas--I mean, of each individual senator. Republicans, on the other hand, are not getting any wiggle room to vote for a rules change in "extraordinary circumstances"--such as the Democrats' abuse of their wiggle room. It looks as though the majority party got taken in this deal.

Well, your party was set to break the Senate Rules, of course you have to give up more.

At first glance, this is truly a compromise because both sides are already pissed off. Personally, I think that having judges on the Federal Circuit with the following resume (care of Jeffrey Dubner) is bad:

...a 4th Circuit judge who took campaign contributions from litigants before her in the Texas Supreme Court; a former attorney general who refused to prosecute corporations he was raising money from; and a D.C. Circuit Court nominee who thinks the entire regulatory apparatus of our federal government is a form of slavery.

Now, everyone will talk about who won and lost, well... the Senate Rules won because they weren't broken. The students filibustering won. And a party with a 10 vote deficit halted the majority from breaking the rules. The big loser is of course, Senate Majority Leader Frist, who couldn't control his caucus, and had an agreement made either because he didn't have the votes, or because his lack of control on his caucus.

Spin this either way, some bad judges got through, Democrats can still filibuster (see Court, Supreme), and Republicans have pledged to not change the Cloture rules (ie the Nuclear Option of the Senate for this legislative session. What happens during the next legislative session, is up in the air. Also of note: legislative sessions don't necessarily need to be a year in length. Watch out for that.

What is not clear however, is how the nomination of John Bolton to the UN fits into this compromise. I doubt that Frist would want to deploy the Nuclear Option for a filibuster on an executive nomination. Even though both Judicial and Executive nominations both follow under the same legislative heading. Both are Executive appointments, and this compromise doesn't necessarily cover both.

Without the Bolton matter, all of this will come down to what the definition of is, is. Senator Lindsey Graham has remarked on CNN that he retains the right to change the rules - specifically Rule XXII - the rule concerning cloture. Specifically, Senator DeWine has reportedly said during tonight's press conference:

Some of you who are looking at the language may wonder what some of the clauses mean. The understanding is – and we don’t think this will happen – but if an individual senator believes in the future that a filibuster is taking place under something that’s not extraordinary circumstances, we of course reserve the right to do what we could have done tomorrow which is to cast a yes vote for the constitutional option.

But in the end, Frist's gambit has been neutered, as has his power. Also neutered was the Executive's meddling, via the Nuclear Option, in the business of the Senate. What is certain is that partisans of both sides will be mightily mad as they go to sleep tonight. But the GOP partisans are all reacting with dismay and disgust to the compromise - because they know they lost more.

After the fold, is the full text of the Memorandum of Understanding.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Ried, This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitment on Pending Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees: We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Prisiclla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees: Signatories make no commitment vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Meyers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit)

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations:

A. Future Nominations: Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes: In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We Believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States 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 member of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practice of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate seek to uphold.

Filibuster Compromise

Comments

Post a comment