A Look at Senate Dispute Over Filibuster
WASHINGTON – The Senate is getting closer to a confrontation between Republicans and Democrats over whether President Bush’s judicial nominees can be filibustered by senators who don’t want them confirmed.
Democrats filibustered 10 nominees to the U.S. appeals courts during Bush’s first term, and they have said they will do so again this year for the seven that Bush renominated.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada also said Democrats might filibuster future nominees, possibly including Bush’s choice for a Supreme Court vacancy should one occur.
Here, in question-and-answer form, is a look at some of the issues being debated:
Q: What is a filibuster?
A: The filibuster is a parliamentary tactic where senators use their right to virtually unlimited debate to block measures or legislation. To stop a filibuster requires 60 votes. Passing a bill or confirming a nominee requires only a simple majority, 51 senators if all 100 senators are present. The vice president can break 50-50 ties.
Use of the term filibuster began to appear in the 1840s. It is derived from the Dutch word vrijbuiter, or free booter, and the Spanish filibustero. Both terms refer to pirates. The filibuster was used in the 1950s and 1960s to impede civil rights legislation. In 1957 Strom Thurmond launched the longest one-man filibuster in history, speaking for more than 24 hours to block the Civil Rights Act of 1957.
Q: Who are the judicial nominees involved in the filibuster controversy?
A: David McKeague, Richard Griffin, Henry Saad, William G. Myers III, Janice Rogers Brown, William H. Pryor Jr. and Priscilla Owen.
Q: Why do Democrats oppose these nominees?
A: Democrats oppose McKeague, Griffin and Saad, all nominees for the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, because Republicans blocked Senate votes on former President Clinton’s nominees for vacancies on the same court. They say the other four are conservative ideologues whose views against homosexuality, abortion, affirmative action, Social Security, labor rights or environmental standards are out of the mainstream.
Q: Why is this important?
A: Republicans and Democrats anticipate that at least one of the nine Supreme Court justices will retire before the end of the Bush presidency. The outcome of the fight over judicial filibusters will determine whether a replacement needs 60 votes or merely a majority. Social conservatives fear Bush would pick a Supreme Court candidate who doesn’t oppose the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion if 60 votes are needed to win confirmation.
Q: Why don’t Republicans keep the Senate in round-the-clock session to force Democrats to conduct the type of filibuster shown in Frank Capra’s 1939 movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”?
A: It’s more convenient merely to have a test vote to see if they have 60 votes and then move on to other issues if they don’t. Republicans also say a round-the-clock filibuster debate wouldn’t bring them any closer to a vote on the nominees themselves.
Q: Is this the first time judicial nominees have been filibustered?
A: It depends on who you ask. Republicans say filibusters have never been successfully used to block judicial nominees from confirmation who had majority support. Democrats point to Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, who was blocked from becoming chief justice in what the Senate historian’s Web site calls “the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.” The attempt to force a vote on his nominaton drew fewer than 50 votes. They also say at least two of Clinton’s lower court judicial nominees were filibustered for years by Republicans, although they were ultimately confirmed.
Q: What do Republicans want to change?
A: The GOP is talking about seeking a parliamentary ruling that declares filibusters are not permitted against judicial nominees. That ruling would ultimately be submitted to the full Senate for a vote, with a simple majority required to prevail. Republicans hold 55 seats in the 100-member Senate, and Vice President Dick Cheney, who also is president of the Senate, has said he will be available to break a tie, if necessary.
Q: When will Republicans do this?
A: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., has never said when he would try to change the filibuster rules. However, it is expected that Republicans want the matter resolved before a retirement from the Supreme Court. Those retirements usually come in the summer.
Frist also said he would offer Democrats a compromise before moving forward. He offered that compromise on Thursday, 100 hours of debate on Circuit and Supreme Court nominees followed by a guaranteed confirmation vote.
Q: Democrats have threatened to slow down the work of the Senate if Republicans succeed. How can they do this?
A: The Senate works at its current speed because much of its workload is handled through a procedure called “unanimous consent.” That means all 100 senators agree on issues like skipping the full reading of every bill, allowing committees to meet while the Senate is in session and voting on procedural Senate business. Without unanimous consent, it could take hours or days to complete work that now takes minutes. By opposing unanimous consent requests from Republicans, Democrats can block or delay most of what the Senate does. Democrats have said they will not delay vital legislation like appropriation bills and homeland security bills or money for America’s troops.
—
On the Net:
Senate history: http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Filibuster-Clotu
re.htm