Confirmation Updates
Hugh Hewitt has a great article today entitled, Showdown in the Senate?. He gives a brief rundown on the facts concerning judicial nominee filibustering. Here is an excerpt:
“Now is the time to express to GOP senators your demand for a vote on the abuse of cloture. The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121. Contact information for senators is found here. Among GOP senators said to be wavering are would-be presidential candidates Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and John McCain of Arizona. Both are intriguing and viable candidates, but not if they vote against breaking the filibuster. Similarly, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is one of the few GOP “liberals” left and it is useful to the caucus to have such a diversity of views, but his re-election will be doomed if he votes against the ruling from the Chair. The NRSC, which supports Chafee, will also find its own fund-raising deeply crippled if the GOP cannot muster the 51 votes necessary to uphold the ruling of the chair. In fact, I think it is a good bet that a large slice of GOP support in the base will simply walk if the motion for a ruling from the Chair is not made or, if made, fails to garner majority support. So significant is this issue to the base of the Republican Party that the failure to carry the day could in fact forfeit the control of the Senate in 2006, a year in which an energized base could bring two or more new seats into Republican control, making legislative innovation a real goal.”
Meanwhile, Radio Blogger has a transcript of Hugh’s radio show yesterday entitled, Left vs. right on judicial filibuster debate. In this transcript of a live debate between Law Professors John Eastman and Erwin Chemerinsky, Eastman pretty much cleared up the smoke screen being spewed by the left. Radio Blogger sums it up with this:
“Issue: The filibuster is being used in ways it has never been used before, and I think any honest assessment has to begin there.
Erwin’s spin:
1. Nothing unusual. Blue slips have been used, too.
2. What about nominees beside judicial ones? They’ve been filibustered.
3. The filibuster’s been around for 200 years.
4. The implication that the filibuster may actually let Senators reflect will of majority of population.
5. Besides, even if filibuster of judicial nominees hasn’t been used before, it’s irrelevant.
6. Constitution doesn’t let president decide who judges are. Constitution says Senate has to confirm.
7. Byrd was right to oppose change of rule now, and he was right to change the rule in the same way in the 70’s and 80’s.
8. Filibuster nothing new, because Strom Thurmond used it.Reality:
1. Blue slips have nothing to do with the precedence being set here. Off point.
2. Again off-topic. Smokescreen. We are talking about judicial nominees. Nothing else.
3. The filibuster’s been around for 200 years, but not used in this capacity for 200 years. Radically different. Erwin’s defense here is deceptive and not accurate with what’s actually going on.
4. A filibuster of the defense of the filibuster. The Republican Party ran on the obstruction of the Democrats, specifically towards judicial nominees, and gained seats in the Senate. The filibustering of Bush’s nominees do not represent a majority of the population.
5. When Bill Clinton was in office, or Bush did something the Democrats didn’t like, all you heard being cried from Democrats was the unprecedence of the current actions. Precedence only seems to be of concern with a liberal ox is being gored. The number of times the filibuster is being used now is clearly relevant.
6. Constitution does not say Senate has to confirm. It says they must provide advice and consent. This is done by voting. It’s hard for Senators to either advise or consent when one Senator won’t let them exercise their responsibility.
7. Instead of admitting Byrd’s hypocrisy of changing the rules in exactly the way the Republicans are proposing three times during his tenure as majority leader, Erwin doesn’t even comment on history. He just uses Byrd’s current position. Erwin loves to bring up history and tradition, unless it kills his argument, like Robert Byrd’s actions do.
8. This was fun. Strom Thurmond did it to Abe Fortas. Strom Thurmond was a Democrat at the time. And it was not an open-ended filibuster. It was a two day job, and then it was done.Scorecard: 8-0 Eastman. There is not one shred of an argument the Democrats can use here. Not one that can hold water. All they can do is spin. The Republicans have history, fact, the electorate, and supposedly, the numbers in the Senate to make this happen. Get it done.”
Finally, we have found a blog dedicated wholly to getting President Bush’s judicial nominees confirmed. It is called Confirm Them. They have all the latest in the confirmation battles.
As Hugh Hewitt again states in the article above:
“Those are the stakes, and the Democrats understand them quite clearly. Do the Republicans? I wish I could say yes, but the refusal of many senators –many senators– to appear on air to discuss this matter, and the vague timetable to the confrontation plus general skittishness has alarmed many observers to the point that I too have begun to wonder. I remain an optimist because Senator Frist must realize that his campaign for the presidency is doomed if he does not break this extra-constitutional log-jam. “
The Congressional switchboard is 202-225-3121, or toll free 1-866-808-0065. Give your Senator a call, especially those who are wavering.
