A compromise on the 'nuclear option'
The Washington Times:
Opinion/Editorial
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist yesterday offered Democrats a compromise in the stalemate over President Bush's judicial nominations. In exchange for saving the filibuster, the proposal would guarantee debate on each nominee on the Senate floor for up to 100 hours, allowing each senator to voice his or her opinion for the record. Also, all the nominees for the federal appellate courts and Supreme Court would be allowed an up-or-down vote in the Senate, and nominees could no longer be blocked from reaching the Senate floor in the Judiciary Committee -- a tactic Republicans used to their advantage during the Clinton administration. Elsewhere in the Editorial section, Mr. Frist discusses his proposal in greater detail.
It's a proposal Senate Democrats won't likely accept at face value. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid was, in fact, quite blunt: "It's a big wet kiss to the far right." Mr. Reid didn't exactly rule out the proposal, but in typical minority-leader speak said that he would have to look at it further. That means that Mr. Reid and Co. will take time to decide if the proposal is a politically viable solution to the judicial-nomination impasse, of which no one's quite sure who holds the high ground with the American people.
Both sides have been threatening to use their ultimate trump card -- but neither side is particularly confident enough to do so. For the Republicans, that means the ill-named "nuclear option," and for the Democrats, that means shutting down the Senate.
But as a matter of policy, Mr. Frist's proposal seems quite reasonable. It addresses the issue of constitutional interpretation, which has always been the heart of the matter. Earlier this week, Mr. Reid offered to allow an up-or-down vote on a few of the 10 filibustered appellate-court nominees -- an offer Mr. Frist rightly rejected. It has been our view that the Constitution's "advise and consent" role for the Senate on presidential nominations does not include obstruction as an appropriate option. Mr. Reid's proposal treats the controversy as a game of "tit for tat," when it should be regarded as matter of interpretation. And the reality is that both sides have abused whatever loopholes are available to go far beyond what the Constitution originally intended. Mr. Frist's proposal is a reasonable remedy that would end the abuse down the road.
If the Democrats reject Mr. Frist's option, then the Republicans could justifiably paint them as obstructionists -- not, as Mr. Reid has tried to argue, defenders of the Constitution. What we might be witnessing is the start of a Republican campaign to isolate the Democrats in the court of public opinion, and that could go a long way come 2006.
washtimes.com |
