With each hour it seems increasingly likely that the “nuclear option” to ban filibusters on judicial nominees will be triggered by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist — a move that will be hailed by GOP partisans and the White House but could usher in an era of intensified polarization in Congress and throughout the country.
The latest point-counterpoint in this political ballet — a ballet in which a group of dancers each goes off to the right or left with only a tiny number stuck out there in the middle — was seen in Washington today where Frist predicted something will happen within a week and his political counterpart vowed not to blink:
Frist, in his weekly news conference with reporters, said he hopes the Senate finishes a highway bill and an emergency spending package to fund military operations overseas this week. “And then we need to turn to 100 United States senators and move to the issue surrounding judges,” he said.
Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he’s ready and expects to win.
“I want to be clear: We are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option,” Reid said in a letter to Frist, referring to the GOP threat to change the filibuster rules. “Democrats will join responsible Republicans in a vote to uphold the constitutional principle of checks and balances.”
What’s at stake? The Christian Science Monitor frames the issue best, from the standpoint of what Frist has the power to do (or not do):
Bill Frist is heading into defining days for his leadership of the US Senate – and future in politics – as he decides when, and if, to pull the trigger on the so-called “nuclear option” on judicial nominees.
Methodical by temperament, Dr. Frist (a title the M.D. prefers to senator) consults widely before making decisions. This week, he hasn’t had far to look for advice. From President Bush to the Democratic opposition to special interests, he’s hearing plenty.
For the man in the middle, the endgame is a critical test of leadership. With an eye on a presidential run in 2008, Frist will need the party’s conservative base. But he also can’t afford the stigma of presiding over a Senate that no longer works, should a partisan breakdown follow Republican efforts to push court nominees through.
“For the conservative movement from the grass-roots up, this is an absolutely essential battle to win,” says Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union. “It’s a test Senator Frist simply has to pass if he is coming calling at the doors of conservatives in 2008.”
While there are definitely people on both sides who welcome this kind of political confrontation as a way to clearly define each party, there are many Americans and academics who see it as a watershed moment from which the country’s political system — and perhaps electorate — will never be able to turn back. And if there was any question now where the White House stands on this issue it evaporated with this statement by President George Bush that virtually demands forcing the issue:
President Bush yesterday called for an immediate vote on two of his most controversial judicial nominations, increasing pressure on Senate Republicans to consider a historic rule change that would make it easier for him, and future presidents, to reshape the federal bench, including the Supreme Court.
Bush issued a statement from Europe demanding an “up-or-down vote” on Priscilla R. Owen and Terrence W. Boyle for seats on appellate courts only hours before Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales held a news conference to cast the judicial dispute as one of “fairness.” Despite a flurry of congressional negotiations yesterday, Senate Republicans appear increasingly likely to exercise the “nuclear option” of changing Senate rules to prevent Democrats from filibustering Bush’s judicial nominees.
So Bush is clearly making it known that he wants the timetable to be sped up. And he wants the filibuster to go down. MORE:
The president, who initiated the conflict by renominating judges whom Democrats had blocked during his first term and demanding new votes this year, is essentially guaranteeing a showdown that is as much about the power of the presidency as Democratic obstinacy, according to numerous government scholars. The result could be a more powerful White House, a weakened Congress and the possible erosion, if not end of, the most powerful tool available to the minority party, the filibuster, the scholars said.
“This is being done to . . . help a president achieve what he wants to achieve,” said former representative Mickey Edwards (R-Okla.), now a scholar at the Aspen Institute. “It’s a total disavowal of the basic framework of the system of government. It’s much more efficient [for Bush], but our government was not designed to be efficient.”
The Post notes that if the “nuclear option” is successfully employed it’s likely to smooth the way for passage of any nominees Bush names to the Supreme Court. One theory that’s now making the rounds is that this is basically a dry run for getting Bush’s Supreme Court justices through.
Some other indications that Nuclear D-Day is approaching:
–According to the Washington Times, Frist already has the name picked out for the judge who will be used to trigger elimination of the filibuster: “..Frist plans for Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen to be the judicial nomination on which he uses the “nuclear option” against Democratic filibusters later this month, according to Republicans familiar with his plans. Justice Owen, first nominated to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals four years ago yesterday, has often been seen as the most likely nominee to be pushed though. And when Mr. Frist, Tennessee Republican, made his final offer to Democrats last month to avoid a showdown, he mentioned only one nominee: Justice Owen.
—E.J. Dionne, Jr. says this isn’t an isolated case, but part of a larger, overall plan to relegate the Democrats to minority party status for decades — and get good-old-fashioned political revenge:
The stakes in politics are about to get a lot higher. The partisan battles in the coming weeks — on judges, Social Security and the future of Tom DeLay — are part of a larger struggle in which Republicans are seeking to establish themselves as the dominant party in American politics. Essential to their quest is persuading Democrats, or at least a significant number in their ranks, to accept long-term minority status. The current acrimony in politics is incomprehensible unless it is understood as the inevitable next act of a long-term struggle…
He says a lot of it is payback for things that happened in the 1990s, then at the end has this:
Grover Norquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and a leading figure in both the DeLay and Bush political operations, chose more colorful post-election language to describe the future. “Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans,” he told Richard Leiby of The Post. “Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant. But when they’ve been ‘fixed,’ then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful.”
If you wonder in the coming weeks why Democrats are so reluctant to give ground, remember Norquist’s jocular reference to neutering the opposition party. Democrats are neither contented nor cheerful over the prospect of being “fixed.” Should that surprise anyone?
Perhaps the biggest shift in all of this in political terms is qualitative: there used to be a premium placed on making decisions based on some kind of consensus and avoiding polarizing actions, if at all possible. The whole style of this White House and GOP leadership on a host of issues is to ram things through, effectively writing off entire parts of the electorate.
Will those parts of the electorate vote to write off the GOP in 2006…and 2008?
Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.