You might have heard the canard from the right that the move to block four judges (and approve 168) is unprecedented. That means without precedent. Well, check this out from someone who knows, Mr. John W. Dean, former counsel to President Nixon.
During the past four decades, selecting judges and getting them confirmed has become far more contentious. According to a report of the Congressional Reference Service, filibusters and clotures have been involved in 35 nominations, most of them since the late 1980s.
Notwithstanding the finger-pointing by the Republicans for filibustering four Bush nominees, this practice started in 1968 with Republicans, with the help of Southern Democrats (who now come to the Senate as Republicans), filibustering President Lyndon Johnson's nominee for Chief Justice, Abe Fortas. Republicans blocked Fortas so Nixon could get the chief justice appointment, assuming, correctly, he would be elected.
It was pure politics, and it began the game that is now being played out. Indeed, Frist, the mastermind of this stunt in the Senate tonight, voted against cloture (and for filibuster) during the battle over one of President Clinton's court appointees. But what is a little hypocrisy when wasting the Senate's time pointing fingers?
Dean suggests we accept that a supermajority (3/5 or 60 senators) is the requirement for a judicial nomination. Why not? Judges are on the bench for life; one bad judge can make policy for decades. And if you can't get 60 senators to support a candidate, well, maybe that candidate isn't good enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment