Debate and then vote
The Washington Times:
Opinion/Editorial
By William H. Frist
The American people elect their senators to do a job. Although the Senate is often called the world's greatest deliberative body, each senator's job, especially when it comes to judicial nominees brought to the Senate floor, is to vote. This is a matter of fairness. And it's a matter of constitutional duty. The Senate can confirm or reject nominees. But, at the end of debate, senators should do their job and give judicial nominees the courtesy of a vote.
In the last Congress, the president submitted 34 appeals court nominees to the Senate. A minority of senators blocked up-or-down votes to 10 of those nominees and threatened to deny votes to another six. This was unprecedented in 214 years of Senate history. Now, in the new Congress, the same minority of senators says it will continue its campaign of judicial obstruction. And, even worse, if they don't get their way, they threaten to shut down the Senate and obstruct government itself.
Judicial obstruction creates many problems: It keeps the president and the Senate from filling court vacancies; it clogs the nation's courts with cases and appeals; and it denies senators their right to vote on nominees. It simply cannot be allowed to continue. So, in the spirit of civility, I propose an agreement that ensures up-or-down votes on judicial nominees after fair and open debate. It's a compromise that holds to constitutional principles and that I sincerely hope is accepted as a solution.
To begin with, we must acknowledge that the bitterness many feel over the Senate's failure to confirm judges did not begin two years ago. Since the 1980s, the battles over judicial confirmation have intensified each year. In the past, Republican and Democratic majorities alike, refused to vote controversial nominees out of committee or even schedule hearings. Whether on the floor or in committee, judicial obstruction is judicial obstruction.
It's time for judicial obstruction to end no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate. The judiciary committee will continue to play its essential oversight and investigative roles in the confirmation process, but every senator should have the opportunity to confirm or reject judicial nominees with up-or-down votes on the floor.
Second, my Democratic colleagues have asked for more time to debate nominees on the floor. I think they should have it. The work of confirming judges to appeals courts and the Supreme Court ranks among the Senate's most consequential duties. Judicial nominees should be fairly and thoroughly vetted before the American people. I believe that up to 100 hours would allow sufficient time for all senators to debate and express their opinions. Once every senator has had the opportunity to speak, the Senate as a whole should speak with an up-or-down vote.
Third, these proposals should apply only to nominees to appeals courts and the Supreme Court. Judges who serve on these courts hold the awesome responsibility of interpreting the Constitution. So far, Democrats have denied votes only to appeals court judges. I sincerely hope that they do not intend to escalate judicial obstruction to future Supreme Court nominees. I hope this offer will make that unnecessary.
Finally, the minority of senators who have obstructed votes on judicial nominees have expressed concerns that their ability to block bills may be curbed. As majority leader, I will guarantee that power will be protected. The filibuster as it existed before its unprecedented use on judicial nominees in the last Congress will remain unchanged.
The debate over judges is about constitutional principles. It's about fairness to nominees. It's about senators doing their job and what's right for the Senate and for the country. Arbitrarily voting on just a few judicial nominees, as some have proposed, will fail to restore the Senate's 214-year practice of up-or-down votes for all judicial nominees that come to the floor. Senators have a duty to vote on these judicial nominees. The Senate can confirm them or deny them, but they at least deserve the courtesy of a vote.
Sen. William H. Frist is the Senate majority leader.
washtimes.com |
