Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

Moderates take charge, defuse filibuster fight

Seven Republicans and seven Democrats compromise on judicial nominees and preserve filibuster power in the Senate.

By WES ALLISON
Published May 24, 2005

WASHINGTON - On the eve of a historic vote that threatened the cooperation of the U.S. Senate, a group of centrist senators rejected the hard-line positions of their party leaders Monday night, striking a compromise for handling some of President Bush's most contentious judicial nominees while preserving the power of the filibuster.

The 14 senators - seven Republicans, seven Democrats - announced the deal as their colleagues prepared for an all-night debate that had been expected to end with Republicans voting to change Senate rules to stop Democrats from using the filibuster to block appeals court nominees.

Instead, the Democratic signatories agreed to allow a vote on some of the president's most conservative nominees, while the Republicans agreed to oppose the rule change. The written agreement says it was "based upon mutual trust and confidence."

"We came together and did the unexpected," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., one of the signatories. "In a Senate that has been increasingly partisan and polarized, the bipartisan center held."

Under the terms of the agreement, the Democrats will allow a full confirmation vote on three appellate court nominees: Priscilla Owen of Texas; Janice Rogers Brown of California; and William Pryor of Alabama. All had been filibustered during Bush's first term, then renominated this year.

Owen could be confirmed as early as today, with the others to follow quickly.

The Democrats also promised to consider the president's future nominees in "good faith," and agreed that "nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances."

In return, the Republican participants agreed to oppose a rule change pushed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee that would have ended the filibuster for judicial nominees.

Conservative Republicans were clearly unhappy with the deal because they had hoped to change the rules before the president is called upon to appoint a new Supreme Court justice. On the Senate floor shortly after the agreement was announced, Frist pointedly noted that "I am not a party" to it. He said he was upset it offered no commitment for votes on two other nominees, Henry Saad of Michigan and William Myers of Idaho.

"So, in that regard, this agreement announced tonight falls short," Frist said. "It has some good news, and has some disappointing news, and will require careful monitoring."

The Democrats, who arguably had the most to lose, were also the most enthusiastic. When Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., saw Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., one of the lead negotiators, he gave him a big hug, clapping him heartily on the back.

"Thank you, Ben, thank you so much," Reid said.

Later, on the Senate floor, Reid declared that "we are now in a new Congress, and a new day."

The White House also praised the agreement. Earlier in the day, President Bush had urged the Senate to act on his nominees.

"Many of these nominees have waited for quite some time to have an up-or-down vote and now they are going to get one," presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said. "We will continue working to push for up or down votes for all the nominees."

The compromise was driven by Nelson and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., two moderates who have often bucked their party's leadership. They were joined by a dozen other centrists, traditionalists and pragmatists, from the most senior senators, Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., and John Warner, R-Va., to the most junior member, Ken Salazar, D-Colo.

Others included Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Republicans of Maine; Lincoln Chafee, R-R.I.; Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.; Mike DeWine, R-Ohio; Mary Landrieu, D-La.; Mark Pryor, D-Ark.; and Daniel K. Inouye, D-Hawaii.

"I know that people here want to ask a million what ifs. What if this? What if that? What about this person or that person, this circumstance?" Pryor said. "Listen, there's a lot of hypotheticals. We don't know what is coming down in the future, but we do know that we trust each other.... This is based on trust."

Democrats have used the threat of filibuster to block 10 of Bush's appeals court nominees, and Bush has renominated seven of them. Republicans wanted a vote on each, but the Democrats had refused, calling the judges too conservative. Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate.

At noon today, Frist had planned to ask the Senate to end debate on Owen, the president's nominee to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans. Democrats were expected to deny the required 60 votes, prompting Frist to seek the rule change with the help of Vice President Dick Cheney, who serves as president of the Senate, and who would have broken any tie.

If the maneuver had passed, it would have marked a monumental change in the Senate's tradition of giving substantial power to the minority and would have given the president enormous freedom for appointing members of the federal judiciary, including the next Supreme Court justice.

In a striking reminder of what was at stake, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, who is fighting thyroid cancer, was wheeled into the Capitol to see a doctor Monday.

"People at home are going to be very upset at me for awhile," Graham said. "But judges are going to get a vote that wouldn't have gotten a vote otherwise. We're going to start talking about who would be a good judge and who wouldn't be, and the White House is going to get more involved, and they're going to listen to us."

The agreement encouraged Bush to consult with senators from both parties about his nominees. Unlike former President Clinton and other past presidents, who frequently consulted congressional leaders about their nominees, Bush has refused numerous invitations to discuss his picks with Democratic leaders.

"Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate," the agreement says.

Although only 14 senators signed the agreement, that's enough to break the impasse: Seven Democratic votes are enough to prevent a filibuster, while seven Republicans can block Frist's rule change.

Republicans like Warner, Graham and DeWine weren't motivated to sign because they believed the Democrats were right, however. Several said that they believed the Democrats had abused the filibuster and had planned to vote to end it.

Instead, the agreement was testament to their belief in the Senate's role in tempering the more volatile House, where the majority rules absolutely.

By giving the minority party the power to stall or even defeat legislation, the Senate is designed to govern from the middle. Several Republicans said they worried ending the filibuster for judicial nominees would lead to ending the filibuster for legislation.

"The one unanswered question that has guided me throughout the whole way was, "What would happen to the United States Senate?"' Warner said.

The dealmakers signed the agreement around a conference table in McCain's office Monday evening, after more than a week of candid, often contentious talks, senators said. They met alone, without their staffs. "This meant there weren't the usual misunderstandings that happen when there's a filter," Collins said.

Nelson had spent the weekend at home in Nebraska, but he consulted frequently by phone with other senators, and he knew when he arrived at the Capitol Monday morning that a deal was possible. They tweaked the agreement until the very end.

"Every time you changed a word, some people liked it and others had questions," Nelson said. But "with every word change, our majority grew."

Senators said it helped, too, that Frist set a time and a date for the vote, after weeks of threats and posturing.

"Time was working in our favor with a real deadline," Nelson said. "Imaginary deadlines, you have trouble."

[Last modified May 24, 2005, 03:00:27]