BloggerRadio.com

More thoughts on the compromise

Raw Story has posted a complete print copy of the "Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations" that blocks the attempt to outlaw the filibustering of judicial nominees. Having read it and pondered, I must say I'm impressed.

The document states that all 14 senators* agree to invoke cloture on three Bush nominees; make no such pledge for or against cloture regarding two additional nominees; and in the case of future nominees commit themselves to:

. . . exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordiary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

The 14 senators also agree to oppose any rule changes in the 109th Senate "that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII."

But most intriguing of all, at least to me, is the statement of principle set out in a sub-paragraph. Joe at Ameriblog reports that just today Bush fils said his job is to pick people for the federal bench, while the Senate's job is to give his nominees an up-or-down vote.

But 14 senators from both sides of the aisle disagree. As they pointedly state in the document:

We believe that under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination in the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe that this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

Clearly, these senators understand W's job description quite differently. In fact they've told him that to "pick people" without consulting both parties in the Senate is unconstitutional un Article II, Section 2.

I think the implication of this is equally clear: If the president nominates a judge to any federal bench -- including the Supreme Court -- without the Senate's advise, that would constitute an unconstitutional "extraordiary circumstance" and thus warrant a filibuster of the nominee.

It may well be that this is 14 senators' version of a Missouri Compromise, an attempt to hang together that will not hold in the end. Nonetheless, it is a re-affirmation of Constitutional principles that confronts the president and the Republican Party's religious-extremist wing. Whether the signatories stand firm on those principles -- and the statement itself declares their commitment is firm -- will be in large part up to us. We must be vigilent and vocal in letting them know what we expect of them in its wake.

At the same time, we must push forward on election fraud issues because this compromise governs only the 109th Congress. Republicans Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee, along with Democrats Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, are up for re-election next year; after 2006 the agreement is moot.

We cannot afford another corrupt election that tilts Congress further to the anti-Constitutional right. If that happens, the willingness of 14 senators to stand firm in the face of an all-out assault on the principles of minority rights and separation of powers will have been for naught . . .

(Tweaked 5/24/05, 12:12 pm: OOPS! Forgot to list the senators to go with the asterisk)

* Compromise signers in order of their signatures above:

Ben Nelson     ( D-Nebraska )
Mike DeWine     ( R-Ohio )
Joe Lieberman     ( D-Connecticut )
Susan Collins     ( R-Maine )
Mark Pryor     ( D-Arkansas )
Lindsey Graham     ( R-South Carolina )
Lincoln Chafee     ( R-Rhode Island )
John McCain     ( R-Arizona )
John Warner     ( R-Virginia )
Robert Byrd     ( D-West Virginia )
Mary Landrieu     ( D-Louisiana )
Olympia Snowe     ( R-Maine )
Ken Salazar     ( D-Colorado )
Dan Inouye     ( D-Hawaii )   

More thoughts on the compromise

Raw Story has posted a complete print copy of the "Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations" that blocks the attempt to outlaw the filibustering of judicial nominees. Having read it and pondered, I must say I'm impressed.

The document states that all 14 senators* agree to invoke cloture on three Bush nominees; make no such pledge for or against cloture regarding two additional nominees; and in the case of future nominees commit themselves to:

. . . exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordiary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

The 14 senators also agree to oppose any rule changes in the 109th Senate "that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII."

But most intriguing of all, at least to me, is the statement of principle set out in a sub-paragraph. Joe at Ameriblog reports that just today Bush fils said his job is to pick people for the federal bench, while the Senate's job is to give his nominees an up-or-down vote.

But 14 senators from both sides of the aisle disagree. As they pointedly state in the document:

We believe that under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination in the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe that this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

Clearly, these senators understand W's job description quite differently. In fact they've told him that to "pick people" without consulting both parties in the Senate is unconstitutional un Article II, Section 2.

I think the implication of this is equally clear: If the president nominates a judge to any federal bench -- including the Supreme Court -- without the Senate's advise, that would constitute an unconstitutional "extraordiary circumstance" and thus warrant a filibuster of the nominee.

It may well be that this is 14 senators' version of a Missouri Compromise, an attempt to hang together that will not hold in the end. Nonetheless, it is a re-affirmation of Constitutional principles that confronts the president and the Republican Party's religious-extremist wing. Whether the signatories stand firm on those principles -- and the statement itself declares their commitment is firm -- will be in large part up to us. We must be vigilent and vocal in letting them know what we expect of them in its wake.

At the same time, we must push forward on election fraud issues because this compromise governs only the 109th Congress. Republicans Olympia Snowe, Mike DeWine and Lincoln Chafee, along with Democrats Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson, are up for re-election next year; after 2006 the agreement is moot.

We cannot afford another corrupt election that tilts Congress further to the anti-Constitutional right. If that happens, the willingness of 14 senators to stand firm in the face of an all-out assault on the principles of minority rights and separation of powers will have been for naught . . .

(Tweaked 5/24/05, 12:12 pm: OOPS! Forgot to list the senators to go with the asterisk)

* Compromise signers in order of their signatures above:

Ben Nelson     ( D-Nebraska )
Mike DeWine     ( R-Ohio )
Joe Lieberman     ( D-Connecticut )
Susan Collins     ( R-Maine )
Mark Pryor     ( D-Arkansas )
Lindsey Graham     ( R-South Carolina )
Lincoln Chafee     ( R-Rhode Island )
John McCain     ( R-Arizona )
John Warner     ( R-Virginia )
Robert Byrd     ( D-West Virginia )
Mary Landrieu     ( D-Louisiana )
Olympia Snowe     ( R-Maine )
Ken Salazar     ( D-Colorado )
Dan Inouye     ( D-Hawaii )   

Comments

[DA]

Dems gave too much, for too little. *If* moderate, reasonable thinking Republicans would now vote against confirmation of those we KNOW to be unqualified, THEN, and only THEN, would I believe that the "compromise" was genuine and worthy.

[DA]

Dems gave too much, for too little. *If* moderate, reasonable thinking Republicans would now vote against confirmation of those we KNOW to be unqualified, THEN, and only THEN, would I believe that the "compromise" was genuine and worthy.