A compromise has been made. Fourteen "moderate" Senators, seven from each party, have added their signatures to a deal that would allow the voting to go forward on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Others would still be subject to the obstructionist threat of filibuster. In other words, they will be obstructed and the will of the majority will not be heard. When I'm speaking of the majority in this instance, I am not talking about the majority in the Senate, I am referring to the REAL majority, the American people that elected these Senators to office. I can understand, and support, filibusters on legislation. But it is my opinion that not granting a vote on these and future nominees is a gross abuse of the constitutional role of "advise and consent". How you can parse that to "block and thwart" is beyond my understanding.
Let me make just a few points about this situation. Those in favor say that it keeps checks and balances in place. Excuse me? Checks and balances have nothing to do with the Senate. Checks and balances are in place to curb the power of the branches of government, not to give the minority party a majority status. Note to the milquetoast middle: Republicans-You won, now do what the people elected you to do. Democrats-The Republicans won, have your say with your vote and move on.
"It's been this way for 214 years. You can't just change the rules in the middle of the game." That sounds good, to bad it's just not true. The Senate rules regarding unlimited debate have been changed more than half a dozen times, including the fairly recent change of requiring only 60 votes to close debate.
Still, my biggest issue with this compromise is that the right did all the compromising. Why stop there? Should we even up sides? "We'll give you four Senators now and moderate to be named later if you'll just be nice to us and say nice things about us in the press." Makes me want to choke, but then I'd spit coffee out of my nose. I just don't see the minority party restraining themselves when it comes to future nominees. One of the seven is going to say, "Sorry but that candidate is too extreme, so all bets are off." The fair-minded Republicans will stick to their word and not vote to end this ridiculous charade and highly qualified judges will be blocked by the side that lost seats in the last election, is in the minority in the Senate, and who's track record on fairness (politically speaking) is totally in doubt. In fact is there anyone who will give me even money that the left will show restraint when it comes to future debate on judges? Anyone? I could probably give 2:1 against (or higher) and still come out a winner.
From Confirm them here is a list of the signers:
Republicans: John McCain (AR), John Warner (VA), Mike DeWine (OH), Susan Collins (ME), Olympia Snowe (ME), Lindsey Graham (SC), Lincoln Chafee (RI).
Democrats: Ken Salazar (CO), Ben Nelson (NE), Mary Landrieu (LA), Joseph Lieberman (CT), Mark Pryor (AR), Robert Byrd (WV) and Daniel Inouye (HI).
Please, let these mis-guided souls know that they are wrong, that the memo they signed is wrong and that supporting them in the future will be wrong and won't be happening. So, if your not going to take my bet on future filibuster detente will you at least better the odds for the future with your checkbook and your ballot.
