Google+

Bench Memos

NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.

Bashman on deal



Text  




How Appealing’s Howard Bashman has some thoughts on the deal here. He thinks it’s good news for Kavanaugh and Haynes, and immaterial on Saad (who he suggests would have lost his confirmation vote), but potentially bad for the Supreme Court.

MEMORANDUM OF “UNDERSTANDING”?



Text  



I don’t even need my lawyer hat for this one, but I’ll put it on in a second. The politics are obvious enough. What the Democrats “give up” in this deal is the ability to filibuster except “under extraordinary circumstances.” What are “extraordinary circumstances”? Here was the Republicans’ big chance to hold the Democrats’ feet to the fire — to make them explain to the American people, concretely, exactly what their objections are to the Bush judges. To judges in general who share a judicial philosophy that where the Constitution is silent the American people should be trusted to govern themselves.

Did they do it? Of course not. “Extraordinary circumstances” means whatever an individual senator decides it means — much like the “living” Constitution means whatever a judge decides it means. It evolves with the circumstances — which is to say, it means nothing.

Oh, and the lawyer hat? An “understanding” — a contract — is, very simply, a meeting of the minds. Does anyone think there is a meeting of the minds here about what “extraordinary circumstances” are?

If Saad and Myers are not worthy nominees, there’s an easy remedy for that. They should be defeated on a vote of the full senate. A deal that stops them from getting a vote — that permits the senate’s constitutional obligation to be obstructed — is a betrayal.

And leaving aside that the advice clause does not — either literally or historically — mean the president should consult with the senate before making nominations, why should I care what the signatories believe the Constitution requires if they don’t think it requires them to perform constitutional “consent” by giving every nominee an up-or-down vote?

ADVERTISEMENT

Rumors



Text  



Liberal groups are telling journalists that Kavanaugh and Haynes will not be confirmed either.

Just to keep score: filibusters have already led to withdrawal of Estrada, Kuhl, and Pickering, plus Claude Allen who was withdrawn on threat of filibuster. Now, this illegitimately used tactic, supposedly renounced in general use going forward by this agreement, may kill Saad, Myers, Kavanaugh, and Haynes for a total of eight appellate scalps of 52 total nominees.

Let’s hope the rumors aren’t true.

Initial Reactions



Text  



1. The Memorandum of Understanding is silent as to one nomination that is already on the floor, that of Thomas B. Griffith to the D.C. Circuit. It also is silent as to all the other nominations that are already pending but have not yet reached the floor.

All the more reason to think that this MOU marks only a very temporary cooling off. The issue will resurface soon, and it is now crystal-clear which Republicans need, ahem, reinforcement.

2. The Republican signatories’ agreement to oppose cloture reform is contingent (both expressly and as a matter of basic contract principles) on the Democrat signatories’ living up to their end of the bargain. The fact that the MOU contemplates that each signatory will use his own discretion in determining whether extraordinary circumstances exist does not mean that Republican signatories will need to defer to a Democrat signatory’s determination. On the contrary, it means that a Republican signatory is free to use his own discretion to determine that a Democrat signatory’s determination of extraordinary circumstances amounts to a violation of the MOU. And the nomination of any person who elicits fewer Democrat objections than Brown, Pryor, or Owen should not constitute “extraordinary circumstances”.

3. The idea that the Constitution contemplates that the President will consult with the Senate before making nominations is belied by the text of Article II, section 2, clause 2, which provides that the President “shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint” judges. As a matter of basic grammar, the phrase “by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate” plainly modifies “shall appoint,” not “shall nominate.” And the idea that consulting Senate Democrats about prospective nominees would somehow have any value is ludicrous.

I Wonder



Text  



what this deal will mean for Brett Kavanaugh

ADVERTISEMENT

Cornyn on the Deal



Text  



“After enduring years of harsh, unjustified attacks, Justice Priscilla Owen, Justice Janice Rogers Brown, and Judge William Pryor will finally get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. The signatories have also agreed not to filibuster judicial nominations in the future except under extraordinary circumstances. But Owen, Brown, and Pryor are highly qualified nominees who are firmly committed to the rule of law. They should never have been filibustered in the first place, and I expect the signatories to hold firm to their agreement not to filibuster similarly qualified nominees in the future. Otherwise, the spirit of the deal will be broken, and signatories will be and should feel free to take action to restore the 214-year Senate tradition of majority vote.

“The Senate judicial confirmation process has been at times emotional and politically divisive, and that is unfortunate. But all Americans of good faith should at least agree that we need a fair process for selecting judges – with full investigation, full questioning, full debate, and then an up-or-down vote. And all Americans should agree that, although nobody likes to lose, the rules should always be the same, regardless of whether the president is Republican or Democrat. President after President after President have seen their judicial nominees confirmed by majority vote, not supermajority vote. Senators should uphold and restore that 214-year tradition.

“I will continue to advocate for up-or-down votes on all of the President’s judicial nominees.”

Taken to the Cleaners



Text  



As I write, Bill Frist is on the floor of the Senate gamely putting lipstick on this pig of an agreement, when he should be denouncing it. Sometimes the Senate’s fabled “comity” is a truly disgusting sight.

Consider the text of the agreement, posted by Sister Lopez below. The Republicans gave up William Myers and Henry Saad–for the 109th Congress, anyway–on no grounds having to do with their fitness for the federal bench, and got nothing, absolutely nothing, in return. Indeed, the Sanctimonious Six have made a public promise to betray their party’s leadership for the duration of this Congress, should that leadership attempt again to enforce two centuries of tradition on respect for the Senate’s responsibilities to act on judicial nominations.

So the GOP fails once again to show that it has learned to act like a governing party, when the voters have made it responsible for so acting. The Democrats, by contrast, may pat themselves on the back for taking those Republican fools to the cleaners. Democrats remember so well how to govern that they can even do it from a position of weakness. By now this is a disappointment without being a surprise.

Daily Kos Read



Text  



An e-mail:

Over at the Daily Kos. the reaction is pretty mixed. Most are holding out hope that there is an unwritten agreement that some of the R’s on this deal will vote against CONFIRMATION for Owen, Brown, or Pryor.

Some are despondent that D’s gave up the right to fillibuster Supreme Court nominees except for ethical improprieties. I agree with the poster who says that the test of this deal is in how quickly Frist moves to a confirmation vote on Owens. If he does so tomorrow, I agree that the R’s did not make a deal to vote the magical three down. If not…I hope there is no if not. Frist and Reid are taking a pounding over there BTW.

The Drama’s Not Over, for Sure



Text  



Charlie Schumer on the floor of the Senate right now: “Armageddon has been avoided, and thank God for that.”

Saad



Text  



Kathryn, I agree with you that Reid’s treatment of Saad was particularly shameful (which is saying something given how some of the nominees have been treated). My only point is that he was certain to be on the list because of the e-mail incident. (I also suspect that some Dems wanted him on the list so Bush couldn’t claim credit for nominating the first Arab-American appellate judge.)

About the Deal



Text  



Two quick points responding to the moderates’ deal on judicial filibuster: 1. The national center-right coalition opposing judicial filibusters, and the Senate leadership, will continue to push for an up or down vote on every qualified judicial nominee.

2. The fact that Senate Democrats are willing to allow cloture on Owen, Brown, and Pryor indicates that conservative judicial philosophy cannot be considered the basis for a filibuster, or an “extraordinary circumstance.”

RE: Saad



Text  



Jon, I confess, that Reid FBI file stunt nearly made me want him in as much as I wanted Bill Pryor in.

Deal: Bottom Line



Text  



I have two initial thoughts about the deal. First, if Chief Justice Rehnquist retires at the end of this term, as may expect, and President Bush nominates a mainstream conservative to the court (e.g. Michael Luttig, John Roberts, Michael McConnell), if the Democrats filibuster the deal was made in bad faith. Indeed, the only possible “extraordinary circumstance” if a mainstream conservative were nominated to replace Rehnquist would be clearly documented ethical improprieties.

Second, if any of Bush’s nominees had to be thrown overboard, I would have picked William Myers to be among them. In my mind, he is the least impressive of Bush’s appellate nominees. As for Henry Saad, his fate was sealed an e-mail he sent disparaging a Senator was inadvertently exposed.

Lindsey Graham & “Nuclear Option”



Text  



There seems to be multiple interpretations of this deal, even in the Senate.

“AN ASYMMETRIC DEAL”



Text  



Ramesh Ponnuru weighs in in The Corner. He says, “It looks as though the majority party got taken in this deal.”

What is the point of being in the majority?

“In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress”



Text  



So the Dems are promising right now to filibuster at least one nominee before them, but the Republicans tied their hands vis-a-vis a rule change for the entire 109th Congress?

“It’s a shame”



Text  



not everyone is going to get an up and down vote, Bill Frist is saying now on the Senate floor. What about Meyers and Saad, he says.

Who’s the majority leader again?

THE DEAL



Text  


Reid Just Promised in His Press Conference



Text  



to filibuster on Myers.

At Reid Presser Now



Text  



“Michigan judges are going to be approved–except for Saad, of course.”

Pages

Sign up for free NRO e-mails today:

Subscribe to National Review