RESTORATION

Charles Krauthammer's column, "Nuclear? No, Restoration," addresses all the gibberish Democrats have been tossing around lately, claiming that Republicans will stop at nothing to grab power. As he points out, nothing could be further from the truth.

Krauthammer writes:

(Excerpts)

Four years ago this week, President Bush nominated Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to the federal bench. Four years later, she and six other appeals court nominees remain unconfirmed and unvoted upon because of Democratic filibusters.

This technique is defended by Democrats as traditional and rooted in history. What a fraud. The only example that comes close is Lyndon Johnson's nomination in 1968 of (sitting) Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice. But this case is muddied by the fact that (a) Fortas was subject to allegations involving conflictsof interest and financial impropriety, (b) he did not appear to have the votes anyway, and (c) the case involved elevation on the court, not appointment to the court.

Even if we concede Fortas, that is one successful filibuster, 37 years ago, in two centuries of American history. In 2000, a small number of Republicans tried to filibuster two Clinton judicial nominees but were defeated in that attempt not only by Democrats but also by Republicans voting roughly 3 to 1 for cloture.

There has certainly never been a successful filibuster in the case of a judicial nominee who clearly had the approval of a majority of the Senate. And there has surely never been a campaign like the one undertaken by the Democrats since 2001 to systematically deny judicial appointment by means of the filibuster.

Two hundred years of tradition has been radically and unilaterally changed by the minority. Why? The reason is obvious. Democrats have not had a very good run recently in the popularly elected branches. Since choosing the wrong side of the culture wars of the 1960s, they have won only three of the past 10 presidential elections. A decade ago they lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years, and now have lost all the elected branches. They are in a panic that they will lose their one remaining ability to legislate -- through the courts.

...Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist seems intent on passing a procedural ruling to prevent judicial filibusters. Democrats have won the semantic war by getting this branded "the nuclear option," a colorful and deliberately inflammatory term (although Republican Trent Lott, ever helpful, appears to have originated the term). The semantic device reminds me of the slogan of the nuclear freeze campaign of the early 1980s: "Because nobody wants a nuclear war." (Except Ronald Reagan, of course.)

Democrats are calling Frist's maneuver an assault on the very essence of the Senate, a body distinguished by its insistence on tradition, custom and unwritten rules.

This claim is a comical inversion of the facts. One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented.

The Democrats have unilaterally shattered one of the longest-running traditions in parliamentary history worldwide. They are not to be rewarded with a deal. They must either stop or be stopped by a simple change of Senate procedure that would do nothing more than take a 200-year-old unwritten rule and make it written.

What the Democrats have done is radical. What Frist is proposing is a restoration.

Contrast Krauthammer's arguments with the babblings of Robert Byrd, as Bill Frist attempted to engage him logically.

From AP:

WASHINGTON May 12, 2005 — Irritated by Democratic chiding, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist on Thursday defended the "fairness and principle" of pressing a confrontation over judicial filibusters. During an hour-long exchange, Senate dean Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., told Frist, "Don't leave this as your legacy."

That was a reference to a Republican plan to eliminate minority Democrats' ability to block President Bush's judicial choices with just 41 votes in the 100-member Senate.

"You have a shirttail full of nominees, and you're going to wreck Senate tradition," said Byrd.

Annoyed, Frist pointed out that Byrd also had talked about the Tennessee Republican in front of Bush on Wednesday and had promised to support holding confirmation votes.

"Didn't you also say as the other part of that statement to the president of the United States, being critical of the potential legacy I might have to leave in order to stand up for fairness and principle, didn't you also say you would give all of these nominees up or down votes?" said Frist, who is expected to leave the Senate in 2006.

"I don't remember what I said, a few or all or three or four, I don't remember," Byrd replied.

..."Don't travel that path because the leader of his party may some day be executed on the same gallows," Byrd said.

Republicans have argued that the Constitution requires confirmation votes, though Frist conceded Thursday there's no language in the document that specifies that.

"But when you have a nominee that comes over, all you can do is shine the light, you examine him, unlimited debate," Frist said. "And then to give advice and consent which is in that Constitution how do you do it? Vote yes, no. Confirm, reject."
_____________________________

How can one deny the logic behind Krauthammer's column? How can one insist that Frist is wrecking his legacy? It's nearly impossible to reasonably disagree with the Republicans' stance on the filibuster of judicial nominees. Like Byrd, Dems must resort to falsifications and bluster and talk of being "executed on the same gallows".

As Krauthammer points out, "Democrats are calling Frist's maneuver an assault on the very essence of the Senate, a body distinguished by its insistence on tradition, custom and unwritten rules.

"This claim is a comical inversion of the facts. One of the great traditions, customs and unwritten rules of the Senate is that you do not filibuster judicial nominees. You certainly do not filibuster judicial nominees who would otherwise win an up-or-down vote. And you surely do not filibuster judicial nominees in a systematic campaign to deny a president and a majority of the Senate their choice of judges. That is historically unprecedented."

WHAT THE DEMOCRATS ARE DOING IS HISTORICALLY UNPRECEDENTED. THE DEMOCRATS.

ONE MORE TIME---THE DEMOCRATS.