Glenn Reynolds on the Conventional Warfare Option
In a short piece on the MSNBC website, Glenn Reynolds mentions my proposal for ending judicial filibusters through a strategy I call the “conventional warfare option.”
Under my proposal, Republicans would force a floor vote on a non-binding resolution of support for qualified judges who are being filibustered. The vote would increase political pressure on Democrats, by concretely demonstrating that those filibustered judges enjoy majority support in the Senate. It is one thing to assert that the filibustered judges have majority support, and another thing to prove it.
I believe the public would agree with Republicans on the judicial filibuster issue — if Republicans could just make the public understand that Democrats are blocking judges with majority support. My proposal would make this point in a tangible and highly visible way that cannot be accomplished through mere speeches. (I discuss the proposal in detail in this post.)
I’m not exactly sure whether Glenn likes the idea or not:
Most nominees, Patterico suggests, would get majority support, making clear that the filibusterers were blocking the Senate. To me, this seems just a bit too clever, but it certainly would stress the anti-majoritarian nature of the filibuster.
(Incidentally, this may be the first time I have ever been accused of saying something that is “too clever.” Usually the criticisms run the other direction.)
I can’t see how it would hurt to try this proposal, as long as the nuclear option remains available as a viable alternative. Even if the proposal doesn’t win on its own, it could help change the terms of the debate in the Republicans’ favor. My proposal would allow Republicans to paint Democrats as obstructionists, rather than allowing Democrats to paint Republicans as bullies. Glenn may think it’s a bit too clever; I think it’s just good politics.
As I said in an update to the post that set forth the proposal, the “conventional warfare option” is really like a series of air strikes at the beginning of a war. It may not win the war — but even if it doesn’t, it softens up the enemy for the eventual attack.
UPDATE: More on the reasoning behind this proposal here.
[…] s an interesting experience for me, watching a woman reciting on nationwide television the drivel I dashed off this morning before heading for the s […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Watching Paint Dry Inside the Blogs (0c6a63) — 5/5/2005 @ 4:31 am[…] te a bit on the idea behind the “conventional warfare option” that I discussed yesterday (and in detail back in November). Two points: […]
Patterico's Pontifications » The Reasoning Behind the “Conventional Warfare Option” (0c6a63) — 5/5/2005 @ 2:00 pm[…] ike the “conventional warfare option” I proposed in November and elaborated on here. In a nutshell, my idea is to force a vote on a non […]
Patterico's Pontifications » Republicans to Employ “Conventional Warfare Option"? (0c6a63) — 5/14/2005 @ 10:20 pmWouldn’t the opposition simply filibuster the non-binding resolution?
An argument could be made that a majority vote of this kind would constitute ‘advice and consent’ since the will of the Senate has been declared and the exact mechanism of the A&C is not spelled out in the constitution. After all, A&C is not a bill in the normal sense of the word since conscurence by the House is not required.
Am I all wet on this point?
Tobias
toby928 (99ba2b) — 5/4/2005 @ 7:51 amconcurrence I mean.
Tob
toby928 (99ba2b) — 5/4/2005 @ 7:53 amThe problem with your “conventional warfare option” is that it is riddled with common sense.
Tripp (71cab3) — 5/4/2005 @ 8:14 amI doubt that. Does anyone really thinks the Democrats are filibustering to prevent any of Bush’s nominees from being voted down?
I think you’re giving the public too much credit. Let them hear Judge x got a majority of votes to approve him — but he’s not becoming a judge. Why? Because of a Democrat procedural maneuver. Most people who don’t follow the issue closely will not understand why Judge x is not becoming a judge. They will then see the Dem filibuster for the squirrelly obstructionist tactic that it is. — Patterico
Xrlq (816c74) — 5/4/2005 @ 8:26 amI see from the continuing discussion here
toby928 (99ba2b) — 5/4/2005 @ 9:35 amAfter watching the incompetent performance by Pubs on last Sunday’s talk shows I have lost any remaining confidence that they will ever effectively communicate on this issue. Its hopeless.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 5/4/2005 @ 9:46 amWhat’s the difference between the non-binding resolution of support that you propose and a cloture vote that fails by getting more than 50 but less than 60 votes (as happened several times in the last Congress)?
[Cloture just addresses whether there will be a vote. Theoretically, one could vote to close down debate, but vote against the nominee. My proposal asks directly whether the nominee has the Senator’s support. In practice, the Senators voting for cloture may be the same ones voting for the nominee — but not necessarily. My proposal forces Senators to say where they stand on confirming a given candidate. It will show indisputably that the President’s candidates would be judges, but for the Dems’ obstruction. — Patterico]
Hal Hopp (fccc98) — 5/4/2005 @ 10:16 am“I believe the public would agree with Republicans on the judicial filibuster issue – if Republicans could just make the public understand that Democrats are blocking judges with majority support”
This sort of ‘if you would only understand me’ stuff is what has doomed democrats forever.
actus (ebc508) — 5/4/2005 @ 10:44 amPatterico is suggesting what he calls the “conventional warfare option”
ThoughtsOnline (e37e4c) — 5/4/2005 @ 11:38 amThe problem with this proposal is that is predicated on Senate Democrats being susceptible to being swayed by ‘public opinion’ – which I don’t think they are. First of all, an awful lot of Senate Democrats are pretty much immune from pressure of any…
Can anyone explain to me, as a curious Canadian bystander, why the Senate cannot just act? Are committees in the constitution? Is there a reason why the Republicans cannot simply use their majority to resolve or vote or decide or whatever the term is, in a fully binding fashion, to abolish or ignore the committees and approve the candidates? Other than the apparent fact that they are completely spineless.
Fred Z (83acf5) — 5/4/2005 @ 11:51 amWhat is the deal with Speaker Hastert anyway? He is the most inarticulate polititian I’ve ever seen. And he shows up on TV with messed up hair, and a bunch of dirt on his jacket. Him, Frist and DeLay are this Iron Triangle of obfuscation and unclear communication.
Ladainian (91b3b2) — 5/4/2005 @ 11:53 am“Incidentally, this may be the first time I have ever been accused of saying something that is “too clever.” ” – Not true – check your logs from last year. I made this observation more than once. But in a positive way, I hope.
Rod Stanton (37529f) — 5/4/2005 @ 1:51 pmJust to answer the question from Fred Z: The US Senate is unique in that it’s rules allows unlimited debate on most questions. The only way to force an end of debate is to invoke “cloture”. That currently takes 60 votes (out of 100). Hence 40 senators can prevent action.
Rick Caird (78b78d) — 5/4/2005 @ 2:28 pmJust to let you know, this blog was mentioned on CNN’s ‘Inside the Blogs’. I have posted the video of your CNN appearance over at my blog.
Congrats on the plug!
Mark Williams (17a7bc) — 5/4/2005 @ 2:30 pmThe real filibuster juggernaut hits a speedbump
The Committee for Justice has a document explaining why the real filibuster won’t work. (Thanks to Ramesh Ponnuru at NRO for the link)
They make a pretty good case, though we think there would be some value in making things more difficult for the …
The Unalienable Right (7a057a) — 5/4/2005 @ 3:08 pmFrist should step up to the bar and do the nuclear option.
Mike O'Sullivan (7427d7) — 5/4/2005 @ 4:45 pmThe GOP is doing a lousy job explaining this to the public.
Filibustering the Filibuster Options
BoiFromTroy (aab581) — 5/5/2005 @ 2:47 pmFellow L.A. blogger Patterico has taken a break from bashing to Los Angeles Times to discuss an old proposal (resurrected by Kaus and Reynolds in recent days) regarding the U.S. Senate Filibuster situation. Rather than pursue the “nuclear option” sug…