All 41 Senate Republicans Seek Veto Power Over Obama's Federal Judicial Appointments. Stop the Obstruction; End the Filibuster.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT
by Meg White

A letter signed by all 41 Senate Republicans was sent to the White House and Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy yesterday in which the GOP demanded inclusion in, and ultimately veto power over, the confirmation of the president's judicial nominees.

The demand was a sharp turn-around for Republicans, who had for the past eight years been calling for the swift confirmation of then-President George W. Bush's appointees.

The letter is couched in historical language, which notes that "our Democratic colleagues have emphasized [senate involvement in appointments] for several years" and "the principle of senatorial consultation (or senatorial courtesy) is  rooted in this special responsibility, and its application dates to the Administration of George Washington." But the GOP's request for veto power of nominees before the judiciary even debates a particular appointment is far from the norm.

The letter gives lip service to themes of bipartisanship, saying they "look forward to working with" the president and that "the judicial appointments process has become needlessly acrimonious." However, what they demand is nothing short of minority control. The letter states that if Republicans "are not consulted on, and approve of, a nominee from our states" they will "not support moving forward," presumably threatening a filibuster.

The phrase "senatorial courtesy" may sound better than "threat of filibuster," but as Politico points out, "the letter is an opening salvo in what could be a partisan battle in the Obama years." The public perception of the use of filibusters is perhaps reflected in this language of bipartisanship that insists upon senatorial courtesy "regardless of party affiliation." The letter emphasizes the idea of working together, when the true intent is more threat than peace offering.

The GOP's determination to oppose Obama's judicial appointments became clear a little more than a week after the 44th president was elected. As we reported back in November, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) pledged to get his colleagues onboard an aggressive filibuster campaign against what he termed "radical leftist" nominees he feared would come out of this new White House.

Yet, back in 2005, Kyl was firmly on the opposite side of this argument:

"This is strictly about whether or not a minority of senators is going to prevent the president from being able to name and get confirmed judges that he chooses after he's been elected by the American people."

In fact, the recent past offers many instances in which conservatives attempted to shame Democrats into abandoning filibuster rights in judicial appointments. The "senatorial consultation" referred to in the letter, also known as the "advice and consent" clause in the Constitution, was argued by supporters of Bush to mean that the Senate's role was to confirm or deny appointees, not offer advice. For a comprehensive run-down on the hypocrisy of GOP lawmakers and activists regarding this argument, see this blog entry at Right Wing Watch.

It appears White House Counsel Gregory Craig has begun his outreach to Republicans in the Senate over judicial appointees, but it is unclear whether the plan outlined in the GOP Conference letter will affect the nomination process.

Kathryn Kolbert, president of People For the American Way, told BuzzFlash that the White House should not be swayed.

"The letter is so blatantly hypocritical and baseless that it should not be taken seriously by the White House," she said.

Further, the striking of a bipartisan pose when it comes to the American judicial system is a new idea for Republicans. As Michael Greco, past president of the American Bar Association, and Patricia Wald, a former chief judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, pointed out in an October 2008 op-ed:

The Bush presidency has produced a right-wing judicial imbalance... Barack Obama has a different view of the role of judges from that of Bush and McCain. Obama, a Constitutional scholar, would likely appoint judges who respect the Constitution as he does -- particularly its core values of liberty and equality. Unlike Bush -- who dangerously has used "presidential signing statements" to decline to enforce new laws he does not like, thereby unconstitutionally usurping power from both Congress and courts -- Obama would ensure that courts safeguard the freedom of all citizens, independent from political influence of the executive branch and Congress.

A request for a comment from Leahy's office was not returned by press time. However, he released this statement in 2004 addressing Republican complaints over Democrats' supposed unwillingness to confirm controversial Bush appointees:

To put it charitably, these crocodile tears about judicial nominations are a tad disingenuous.  

Let's review the record.

The earlier Democratic-led Senate confirmed more Bush judicial nominees than the Republican-led Senate has. In all, Democrats have joined in confirming 173 Bush judicial nominees -- 100 of them during the Democratic-led Senate.

So 173 have been confirmed. Six controversial nominees have been blocked. Two of them have been unilaterally appointed by the President during Senate recesses.  One has withdrawn to rejoin a lucrative job with a law firm. That leaves three who have been blocked. One-hundred-seventy-three confirmed, to three blocked. Compare that to the more than 60 Clinton judicial nominees who Republicans blocked from even getting hearings, let alone votes.

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Christine Bowman contributed to this report.

Technorati Tags: Alerts obama judiciary appointee judicial appointment filibuster letter republican GOP leahy bipartisan kyl party