Blogging the 30 hours


After watching myself to sleep last night, here are some general thoughts on the "debate."
The GOP brought on this 30 hour marathon in the hopes of convincing Americans that the Democrats are henchmen for Satan with their use of the filibuster in order to block four Bush nominees to federal bench.
Their appeal is this: every judge that gets to the floor of the Senate deserves an up or down vote. The Democrats have changed what would be a simple majority vote (51- which the GOP would win in a party line vote) to a supermajority vote (60, in order to overcome the filibuster). The Repubs argue that the Dems are wrong to use the filibuster on the vote for nominees, thus requiring a supermajority to get a vote on the nominees.

The GOP appeal, put in simplistic terms, is..well, appealing. There's no more simple request than an up or down vote, right?
But, when the citizen learns about the nomination process, and Senate history, that simplistic appraoch corrodes, and the Dems' action looks more and more reasonable.
For that reasons, I think the GOP 30-hour debate on this topic will backfire. I predict the Democrats will come out the "winners" here. The reason is two-fold. 1) the Dems will that they are acting reasonably. As far as I've been watching- they are stressing that 98% of Bush's nominees have gone through. This percentage is much greater than Clinton's nominees. The Dems are also doing a good job to show that their filibusters are less eggregious than the holds that the GOP put on so many Clinton nominees (63 were blocked from getting votes--20% of his nominees). The GOP did not even let the nominees get to the Capitol. On the other hand, the Dems brought in the nominees, listened to them, and thus educated, used the filibuster to block nominees the Dems found unsuited.
2) the Dems have used their half of the discussion to ask a larger question: why are we here talking about 4 people who did not get a job, when we should be putting this energy to getting the job market in general back on track. Lots of Dems are getting up and using their time to point to some major public issues...and then asking why we're talking about these four nominees. They answer they're own question as thus: because the GOP will not be happy until they have absolute control- until the Senate is merely a ruber stamp for Bush.

The above is the basic 2 prong line being used by the Dems. I'm finding it effective--but will be excited to see what the media picks up.

Constitutionally, the Dems are right.
As you know, the President nominates federal judges. Pursuant to the Advice and COnsent clause of the Constitution, the Senate affirms the nominee. But with that latter step, the Senators (both parties) are afforded various chances to block nominees they don't like. Traditionally, this is done early. A single Senator, from the same party as the Pres, can usually ask that a particular judge not be nominated. The other major obstruction tactic is used by the Judiciary Committee. That committee takes up the nominee and sends the nominee to the floor upon committee approval. Thus, if the majority party doesn't want a nominee, the committee simply never brings up that nominee. While the Republicans held the Senate with Clinton in office, this tactic was used often. The Dems used it to some extent while in power under Bush.

Here's the question: is a filibuster (that blocks a nominee after that nominee went to the judiciary committee) fundamentally different from blocking a nominee before the Judiciary Committee hears the nominee?
I think pre-hearing holds are substantially the same as the current use of the filibuster.

---------
some other sources:
The Center for American Progress has some words. Dismisses the 30 hours as a GOP and Fox News vigil in order to grab some PR.

----------
Another update: it's quite funny to hear both sides quoting each other from four years ago- when the two parties were on opposite sides of this issue. Back then, of course, Dems wanted every nominee to get a vote, and ideology not considered- while Repubs defended the power of the Senate as a place to refuse nominees, and to guard against ideological judges. Now....vise versa.
-----
some highlights whilst i listen

Schumer: 184 to 4

Feingold: we need to debate manufacturing losses. That's an issue of far more magnitude.

Hatch: Constitutuional duty for up or down vote.

Feinstein (7:42pm): GOP blocked Clinton nominations without so much as a hearing. At least Dems give hearing, and make decision to block with knowledge.
She's making a larger point that the GOP has put nomination process in a new confrontational light.
Rule 4. Senate rule preventing closing off debate on nominee unless at least 1 minority member agrees. One of the only protections for minority party in Senate- protects delibrative body.

Durbin (7:57): bashing federalist society. Advice to young law students that want to be a republican nominee: join the federalist society and don't miss a meeting.
I hadn't known this--apparently, all 168 Bush nominees that have been approved have been members of the federalist society. Is that right? I'll have to check that.

Fox news bashing. (Durbin still) Apparently, fox news asked the GOP senators to come out right at 6pm, so as to be live at the opening of Brit Hume.

----
The GOPs are focusing on never before used filibuster. (This is untrue).

Dems are stressing that GOP denied Clinton nominees votes - and also denied hearings.
-----

Senator Bayh: partisans alone will be satisfied by the 30 hour debate. Senate has become a farce- nothing but sound and fury.
Bayh bemoans a cycle of constant recrimination. Minority obstructs to hold some power, then turns around and complains when in power, and the new minority obstructs.