A group of 14 centrist senators from the Republican and Democratic parties on Monday night struck an 11th-hour deal aimed at averting a political crisis over President George Bush’s judicial nominations.
Under the deal, some of the judges selected by the White House for high federal positions will go before the full Senate for a straight vote. Two others, believed to be particularly right-wing could be subject to a filibuster, allowing the minority Democrats to block them by extending the debate over their nominations until it runs out of time.
The agreement also promises the survival of the filibuster, one of the Democrats’ last remaining powers in a Republican-dominated political landscape. The Republican leadership had threatened to overturn it with a controversial parliamentary manoeuvre known as the ”nuclear option” which would have permanently altered the deliberative nature of the Senate, and could have precipitated a political crisis.
Lining up with his 13 colleagues to announce the deal, Senator John McCain, a former and likely future Republican presidential candidate said: ”We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and the pull the institution back from a precipice.”
Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia declared: ”We have kept the Republic. We have lifted ourselves above politics, and I say thank God for this agreement and these colleagues of mine.”
It was unclear on Monday night how long the deal could survive. The senators said it depended on trust among the group of 14, in which the Republicans agreed to vote against the ”nuclear option” and Democrats agreed to vote to end a filibuster on three judicial nominations to federal appeals courts, Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor.
However, Senator McCain said there was ”no commitment to vote for or against” the filibuster against two other conservative nominees, Henry Saad and William Myers.
The Democrats in the group also agreed to use the filibuster in the future, only in ”extraordinary circumstances” which were not defined.
The Republican Senate leader, Bill Frist, expressed disappointment that the deal ”fell short” of allowing an ”up or down vote” on all of Bush’s chosen judges.
The deal came after camp beds had been set up in the Senate in anticipation of an all-night session, and the rhetoric on both sides had risen to fever pitch. A liberal television advertisement portrayed Senator Frist as a wild-eyed, cackling Darth Vader, while a Republican senator compared the Democrats to Nazis.
Bush had signalled he was in no mood for concessions. ”I said I’ll pick people who will bring great credit to the bench, and that’s exactly what I’ve done,” he said yesterday. ”And I expect them to get an up-or-down vote.”
The first judicial nominee at issue is Priscilla Owen, a right-wing Texas judge, labelled as an extremist by Democrats, who is a candidate for a federal appeals court.
But the vote is really a dry run for the looming struggle over the composition of the supreme court, which in turn determines US law on abortions and gay marriage.
The Constitution requires the Senate to give its ”advice and consent” on the choice of senior judges. It does not mention filibusters, but both sides are pointing to Senate precedent to support their cause.
The Democrats’ Senate leader, Harry Reid, told university students at the weekend that Senator Frist and vice-president Dick Cheney, in his constitutional role as the Senate’s president, would ”seek to change 214 years of American law and tradition”.
Both sides were last night claiming to have the votes to win today’s battle.
Emergency meetings were being held by groups of six centrist senators from each party in an attempt to force a compromise on their respective leaderships.
Under the proposed deal, the Democrats would agree to allow straight votes on most of President Bush’s nominees while reserving the right to filibuster against ”extreme” supreme court nominations. In return the Republican moderates would help to vote down the nuclear option.
What it is and why it matters
What is the filibuster?
A parliamentary technique that allows a minority party to block a motion by making speeches until the allotted time for debate expires. In the past it has been used against legislation, but the Democrats have recently been filibustering some of the White House’s judicial nominations.
Can they be stopped?
A Senate rule, called the cloture, requires 60 votes to cut off a filibuster. The Republicans have 55 votes. A cloture vote is scheduled on Tuesday on the debate over a judicial nominee, Priscilla Owen.
What happens if the Republicans lose it?
They will go for the ”nuclear option” — proposing a ban on the filibuster of judicial nominees. The Democrats would need 51 votes to block the rule change.
Is a compromise possible?
Yes, the centrist Democratic senators would only filibuster judicial nominations in ”extreme circumstances”, and centrist Republicans would only vote for the ”nuclear option” in similarly ”extreme circumstances”.
What is at stake?
President Bush’s power to appoint rightwing judges to the supreme court, which will decide laws on abortion, gay marriage and other divisive issues in America’s ongoing ”culture wars”. – Guardian Unlimited Â