LAT Brownstein :End Battle Over Judicial Picks

[papau]

"The root of the problem over judicial nominations is that neither side sees political gain in compromise. Each energizes its electoral base by standing firm. That translates into money and activism for elections in 2006 and beyond. And the White House and Democratic leaders know their most ardent supporters would denounce any compromise as capitulation."

"Both sides need a longer view. Democrats genuinely consider the nominees they have blocked to be out of the mainstream. But the republic has survived the appointment of individual judges that either side considered extreme. At this point, it's more important to establish a process that would allow future presidents to reach reasonable agreements with Congress on how to fill vacancies."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook21feb21,1,1530638.column?coll=la-headlines-nation

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-outlook21feb21,1,1530638.column?coll=la-headlines-nation
RONALD BROWNSTEIN / WASHINGTON OUTLOOK
To End Battle Over Judicial Picks, Each Side Must Lay Down Arms
Ronald Brownstein
Washington Outlook

February 21, 2005

<snip>Some Senate Republicans are optimistic that this time they can shatter the Democratic resistance to the most controversial nominees. That's always possible. But it's still not likely unless Republicans execute their threats to change Senate rules to prevent Democrats from filibustering nominees. And that could generate enough hostility in Congress to make the Civil War analogy frighteningly apt.

Rather than escalating the conflict so dangerously, each side would better serve the country by reaching an agreement that breaks the impasse over judges. It's a depressing measure of contemporary Washington that hardly anyone talks about such a compromise.

The first step toward solving the problem is measuring it. Congress has moved efficiently on Bush's nominations for the federal district courts, the lowest rung of the federal court system. In his first term, Bush made 179 district court nominations; Congress confirmed 170 of them.

The tension has come over Bush's appointments to the powerful Circuit Courts of Appeals. Bush nominated 52 appellate court judges in his first term; Congress approved 35 of them. That's prompted the GOP charge that Democrats are abusing the right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.

But Republicans blocked almost exactly as many of President Clinton's nominees. Clinton, during his second term, nominated 51 appellate court judges — and the Republican Senate confirmed 35.

The preferred GOP technique for sinking Clinton nominees was to deny them hearings or a floor vote. Since Democrats don't control committees or the floor schedule, they have been compelled to use the more incendiary weapon of the filibuster to stop the Bush nominees they oppose. But the result has been the same: frustration in the White House and rising bitterness in Congress.
<snip>
Bush could quietly review his list of nominees with Senate Democratic leaders, drop a few they consider most objectionable and adopt a small number of choices they prefer (perhaps some of the blocked Clinton nominees).
<snip>