Robbing Peter

Do I understand this correctly? Are the Dems agreeing not to block the nominations if the Republicans will leave the fillibuster law alone?

One thought on “Robbing Peter”

  1. Yes, you are reading this correctly. The idea is to preserve the filibuster for the fight that will likely happen when Chief Justice Rehnquist retires and the President nominates Scalia to replace him and then another TBA to replace Scalia.

    While I believe that both sides would have no problem with O’Connor as the next chief, she has made noises about retirement as well and will most likely try to retire with a Republican in the White House. So, there may be two Supreme Court vacancies that Democrats will need to have the filibuster in place to ensure that any appointments will be “middle-of-the-road” rather than “far-right” candidates.

    If the Republicans would let go of the three that have been suggested, then the Dems will have succeeded in preserving the filibuster and removing the worst of the remaining 10 nominees. What seems strange to me is that Frist may actually have the votes for the rule change. The Senate leadership must have done some serious arm-twisting in order to get the votes.

    It is bizarre that this congressional leadership has been so successful in getting its members to vote away their privileges – first their war power with regard to Iraq and now their advise and consent power in the matter of judicial nominees. I just don’t get politicians that readily agree to give away their power and privilege in the name of party unity. Where is their individual ambition? Have they all been neutered by their Party’s pandering to the religious right?

Comments are closed.