The Unalienable Right
Sunday - October 20, 2019

« « The proper scope of “Advice and Consent” | MAIN | John McCain joins » »

“Moderate” Reps settle for three out of ten

So the “moderate” Republicans – remember their names, McCain, DeWine, Snowe, Warner, Graham, Collins, and Chafee – have made a deal that achieves an up-or-down vote for three out of President Bush’s ten filibustered nominees. Thirty percent, a stunning victory!

The Confirm Them blog has the text of the agreement:


We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word “Advice” speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

The deal looks like a win for the Democrats and a capitulation by the ever weak-kneed Republicans. The only way for Republicans to turn it into a victory will be if the above “moderates” grow the backbones that they didn’t have before making this deal. You can bet the Democrats’ invocation of “extraordinary circumstances” will be on a hair trigger.

More on the deal here, here, here, here, and here.

Update: Professor Bainbridge thinks conservatives need to stop whining about the deal.

Rick at Stones Cry Out thinks the Republicans made a brilliant political move. So let’s say there’s a range of opinion out there.

posted by: The Editors @ 7:09 pm May 23, 2005

1 Comment

  1. There’s even a range of opinions even at Stones Cry Out.

    Comment by Mark Sides — May 24, 2005 @ 10:33 am May 24, 2005

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed for this post.

All comments are moderated, they will not appear immediately. Comments judged by the editors to be obscene, libelous, or otherwise inappropriate will be deleted. Comments will not be deleted because they disagree with the positions of this site. Respectful dissent is encouraged.

The opinions expressed by commenters are their own and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the owners of this website.