Senate majorities and judicial nominees

Tuesday looks like the day that the confrontation over judicial filibustering comes to a head, barring any compromise that might be worked out. I have posted here last week, that the Republicans should not compromise. They are the majority party, because the American people elected more Republicans to the Senate. That be said, it is time that the Senate got to the people's business and had an up or down vote on all judicial nominees. This is about more then Justice Owens, it is the set up for all future judicial nominees, including those to the Supreme Court. The Washington Times explains in their editorial.

"During 2003 and 2004, in an unprecedented, systematic use of the tactic, Democrats wielded the filibuster, which requires 60 votes to stop, to deny up-or-down votes for 10 nominees to the increasingly powerful U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal. The Republicans' majority during the 108th Congress, narrow though it was, nonetheless was sufficiently united to guarantee the confirmation of each of those nominees in an up-or-down vote that was denied them.

In the 2004 election, Republicans increased their majority in the current 109th Congress to 55 members. With 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster, however, that is still not enough to overcome a united front by the Democrats, who have pledged to use the filibuster as relentlessly in the 109th as they did in the 108th. There is no doubt the Democrats would use the tactic for a Supreme Court nominee."

The American people continue to elect Republicans to the Senate, increasing the Republican majority in each of the last 2 election cycles. This includes the defeat of the former Minority Leader, Tommy Daschle, who lead the the dem/leftist filibustering. One would think the dem/leftists would have learned from Daschle's defeat. Instead, the new Minority Leader, Harry reid, has increased the volume of rhetoric.

"The final trend worth considering involves the results of the last several elections. Democrats haven't won the White House since 1996. The last time Democrats emerged from national elections with a majority in the Senate was 1992. On election night in all subsequent elections, Republicans achieved majority status in the Senate. Recall that the Democratic majority (June 2001-December 2002) occurred only after Mr. Jeffords left the Republican Party.

In its May 18 editorial, "Nuclear Disarmament," The Washington Post offered a recommendation to defuse the current battle over filibustering judicial nominees. As an alternative to the "nuclear option," The Post said the Republicans "could advocate rules that would guarantee swift committee hearings and up-or-down votes starting in 2009, when nobody knows which party will control the Senate or the White House." Reviewing the election results described above, we could not disagree more.

In this case, we agree with Chris Matthews of "Hardball": Democrats could solve the dilemma that the "nuclear option" poses for them by winning a few more elections."

I do not find it surprising that The Washington Post wants to wait until 2009. I am sure that they are hoping that the political landscape will have changed by then, favoring the dem/leftists they usually support. As I have posted numerous times here, if the dem/leftists want to control the agenda as it concerns judicial nominees, all they need do is get more of their members elected to the Senate. It is nice to know that Chris Matthews agrees with me. - Sailor