Why are the Senate Democrats filibustering some Bush judicial nominees? Well, as Kevin Drum points out, they don't have a choice because Senate Republicans nixed all the rules they used to block Clinton nominees once Bush took office.

Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee's home state objected to (or "blue-slipped") a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton's nominees.

But in 2001, when a Republican became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take objections from both home-state senators to block a nominee. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George W. Bush's nominees.

In early 2003 Hatch went even further: Senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it could still go to the floor for a vote.

Finally, a few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with "Rule IV," which states that at least one member of the minority has to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.

To be frank and non-partisan for a second, though, let me just say that I see nothing wrong with these rules or with the filibuster. Further, no president should have 100% of their judges accepted. And while I've pointed out that the Republicans blocked 50+ Clinton nominees at the committee level back in the 90s, I've cited this for the sole fact that it shows them to be hypocrites. I never said that I thought it was wrong, and indeed, I don't. It would be hypocritical of me to consider Republican blue-slipping wrong but Democratic filibusters okay; both are proper courses of action in my book. That's democracy. I may not agree with the judges that the Senate allowed Clinton to have, however I also must remember that Clinton wasn't elected with a 50% majority, therefore he shouldn't have been able to put more extreme liberal judges on the bench. Likewise, Bush's elections have been very close (he couldn't even win the 2000 one without cheating, ferchristssake), so he also has no business stacking the court with extremists from his side.

That's how democracy is supposed to work. But, unfortunately, the Republicans hate democracy because it means that they won't get their way 100% of the time. They're shameless, unpatriotic, and wrong.

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/mt/mt-tb.cgi/140

Posted by: Rogue at May 23, 2005 11:42 AM