Sinking Judicial Agenda

The Washington Times (Washington, DC), February 22, 2005 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Sinking Judicial Agenda


President George W. Bush's judicial agenda is sinking because of his refusal to expend political capital and to risk legislative crumbs to crush the Democrat filibustering of his intellectually gifted nominees.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist's probable retirement in June makes the president's persistent inactivity over judicial filibusters alarming. His pledge to appoint justices in the mold of Associate Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas will be thwarted if 60 votes are required to obtain a floor vote on Supreme Court nominees. Democrats successfully employed the filibuster during Mr. Bush's first term to stymie confirmation votes on 10 talented appellate court nominees without provoking the president to twist arms in the Senate to overcome the obstructionist tactic. That same unmasterly inactivity has marked the beginning of Mr. Bush's second term.

He has studiously refrained from interceding with irresolute Republican senators to declare judicial filibusters an unconstitutional encroachment on the president's power to appoint under Article II, section 2, with simple majority approval in the Senate. (Legislative filibusters affect only the exclusive legislative powers of Congress. They are undisturbing to the Constitution's separation of powers). In contrast, Democrats have vocally committed to invoking the filibuster to block any Bush nominee bearing Scalia-Thomas trappings.

At present, the Senate sports 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats, and 1 independent. By himself, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Tennessee Republican, has been unable by exhortation or cajolery to assemble 51 votes to declare judicial filibusters unconstitutional and thus unenforceable.

About 10 Republicans are loath to risk the threatened venom of their Democrat colleagues by destroying the last Democratic Party dike against the 2004 elections. A modicum of bipartisanship and comity is pivotal to moving forward on any senator's agenda. The reluctant Republicans insist the Supreme Court and subordinate federal tribunals are worth sacrificing to maintain Senate harmony and fraternity on other matters.

President Bush seems to agree. During his confirmation hearing, Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez declared the Justice Department would remain aloof from judicial filibusters.

The president himself has resisted working hand-in-glove with Mr. Frist to confront wavering Republicans or Red State Democrats with carrots and sticks depending on their votes in favor or against filibustering knavery. Mr. Bush apparently reasons that steamrolling Democrats over the federal judiciary would forfeit needed bipartisan support for pioneering Social Security change, tort reform, energy legislation, a Clean Sky program, and companion mundane laws; that the appointment of judges is too marginal to the nation's destiny to gamble his legislative ambitions; and that the president has no constitutional business tampering with an internal Senate rule.

But the Constitution withholds any official role for the president in proposing amendments or legislation. Yet Mr. Bush has openly urged Congress to adopt amendments dealing with same-sex "marriage," flag desecration, and victims' rights.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
Loading One moment ...
Project items
Cite this article

Cited article

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited article

Sinking Judicial Agenda


Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.

Are you sure you want to delete this highlight?