Comments on: Republicans Caving on Judicial Nominees, Thanks to Gang of 14 Deal

By: Confirm Them » Amusing Headline

Confirm Them » Amusing Headline — Tue, 30 May 2006 11:57:10 +0000

[...] Yesterday, Patterico had a post about the Gang of 14 Deal. I copied some, and herewith paste it: [D]idn’t that Gang of 14 capitulation deal bring us Alito and Roberts? No. As I have said before, they would have been confirmed anyway. And if we had deployed the nuclear option, we would have gotten all the judges we already got — plus Estrada, Kuhl, Saad, and the judges who look like they are getting thrown under the bus now. [...]

By: aphrael

aphrael — Tue, 30 May 2006 05:44:24 +0000

Stu707 - you may be correct as to what would happen, but that doesn’t mean that it would be right for the Democrats to do so.

By: Stu707

Stu707 — Tue, 30 May 2006 01:24:09 +0000

If the President is a Democrat and the Democrats are a majority in the Senate, there will be no filibuster. A Democrat can be as liberal as Ginsberg and the GOP will not filibuster. Indeed, all but a few Republicans voted to confirm her.

If there should be an attempted filibuster by a Republican minority of a Democratic judicial nominee who has the support of a majority of Democratic Senators, the so called nuclear option will be promptly invoked.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Mon, 29 May 2006 23:35:44 +0000

That said, to the extent that I mischaracterized your position, I apologize.

I suspect that there are many conservatives who want the power to filibuster judicial appointments eliminated as long as their man is President, and who will want that power back as soon as a Democrat is elected to that office. But if you say you are not one of them, I will take you at your word.

By: aphrael

aphrael — Mon, 29 May 2006 23:33:54 +0000

Patterico: elections do have consequences, absolutely. But the Senate has the institutional power to block Presidential nominations, and if the Senate grants that power to a large minority under the theory that consensus is an important consideration, I don’t have a problem with that. Consensus is an important consideration.

I will not object if a Republican minority in the Senate blocks leftist judicial candidates; I think their power to do so is a feature of the system. Nor do I object to a Democratic minority in the Senate blocking conservative candidates.

By: Black Jack

Black Jack — Mon, 29 May 2006 23:08:47 +0000

Harry Reid and most of the Dems appeared to respect Miers well enough, even if they don’t show much to the guy who nominated her. Let’s not forget that.

And, it was Conservatives who objected to GWB’s nomination of the underqualified crony, and it was Conservatives who refused to go along with the obvious travesty. It was a splendid example of appropriate citizen participation in government.

By: actus

actus — Mon, 29 May 2006 22:03:57 +0000

The President gets to choose judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. A 90% confirmation rate seems reasonable to me.

And lets not forget how well respected his choice of Miers was.

By: sharon

sharon — Mon, 29 May 2006 22:00:41 +0000

And, of course, those who voted for Bush expected just the sorts of nominees that puts Democrat knickers in a twist. Ah, for the good ol’ days of nonpartisans (snicker) like Ginsberg.

By: James B. Shearer

James B. Shearer — Mon, 29 May 2006 21:34:13 +0000

The President gets to choose judges with the advice and consent of the Senate. A 90% confirmation rate seems reasonable to me. And so what if Bush would have trouble getting a controversial nominee confirmed, let him nominate some uncontroversial judges like Roberts and Alito.

By: McGehee

McGehee — Mon, 29 May 2006 21:22:48 +0000

Don’t they still control the Senate?

That’s a … rhetorical question, right?

[Yeah . . . that's why I answer it in the affirmative in the next sentence. -- P]