Nov 30, 2009 by Bruce
Can we reform the judicial confirmation process?
Senator Jeff Sessions, writing in the Washington Post, surveys the history of filibusters against federal judicial nominees. He takes the reasonable, in my opinion, position that the process can be reformed so that nominees can look forward to an up-or-down Senate vote rather than a filibuster.
Since the Democrats have set the rules (with a little help from the Gang of 14 Republicans back in 2005) that filibusters are okay, I see no reason for Republicans to abandon the filibuster unilaterally. You don’t bring a knife to a gunfight if there’s a 9 mm handy.
Back in 2004 and 2005, Republicans (as the majority party) tried to introduce legislation that would have eliminated the filibuster for judicial nominees, but minority-party Democrats would have none of it. Why would they? They were enjoying numerous “victories” consisting of blocking top-notch nominees like Miguel Estrada (who might even be on the Supreme Court right now but for obstruction – but that story is for another day), Priscilla Owen and others.
But now the Democrats, as the majority party in the Senate, might just be a little more reasonable about considering a rules change, since it’s in their interest to do so. The near-miss of the Republicans’ attempted filibuster of David Hamilton just might provide the impetus for a much-needed procedural reform.
