How does the congress prevent Arlen Specter’s defection from allowing republicans from blocking judicial nominations? You change the rules of course but Legal Insurrection says not so fast:
I don’t think it is likely that the Rules will be amended for a particular nomination. First, the rule requiring a minority vote only comes into play if Republicans decide to fight a nominee to the bitter end. Assuming Souter is replaced with a roughly equivalent moderate liberal, I don’t see Republicans picking this fight. The existence of the rule itself should have a moderating effect on the choice made.
Second, changing the rules mid-session would itself be the cause of opposition to a candidate, and would taint any nomination before a vote of the full Senate. Remember, as of now the Democrats still do not have a filibuster-proof majority in the entire Senate, and even if Al Franken eventually gets seated, it would take only one of the handful of moderate Democrats to oppose a nominee for the filibuster to succeed. By forcing a nominee through committee by changing the rules, the administration would be increasing the likelihood of a problem.
Third, Harry Reid shot himself in the foot on rule changes by insisting that Roland Burris could not be seated without presenting the necessary Secretary of State certification. Reid’s words about the sanctity of Senate Rules would come back to haunt him if the Senate changed the Judiciary Committee Rules just to force through a nomination.points out this is a statement that Harry Reid should have taken to heart.
Harry should have taken President Coolidge’s words to heart but the real killer is #1. Every left wing pressure group will be looking for the big payoff in judicial nominations. They will be pushing the president to nominate someone as far left as possible. That increases the chances that republicans with frankly nothing to lose will play every card they have in the deck.
