Let's make a deal

The Hill reports Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who is working on a bipartisan compromise to end the filibuster of judicial nominees, said he believes that his party’s practice of blocking confirmation votes on controversial nominees has put him and fellow Democratic centrists in politically difficult positions. Nelson, who accepts recent comparisons between himself and former Sen. John Breaux (D-La.), a centrist Democratic dealmaker, suggested that a few Democrats in so-called red states might be relieved should the prospect of filibustering the president’s nominees be eliminated. “I think that some of my colleagues have had some discomfort in voting against cloture but have felt that the nominees were sufficiently unwise choices to feel that was justified,” he said. “I’ve sensed some concern.” Nelson said that one such colleague is Sen. Ken Salazar (D), who represents Colorado, a state that President Bush carried twice. Senator Salazar has been supportive of moving forward” on allowing confirmation votes on even Bush’s controversial nominees, said Nelson. “Senator [Mark] Pryor [D-Ark.] voted to move forward on Judge [Bill] Pryor, and Sen. [Blanche] Lincoln [D-Ark.] has on a couple of occasions voted for cloture on other judges,” Nelson added. Judge Pryor is a nominee to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

All good targets if something is not done about the 10 judges being held up.

Nelson is negotiating with Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.), chairman of the Rules Committee, to reach a bipartisan compromise to end the impasse between Republicans and Democrats over the judicial filibuster. Nelson has suggested to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and his own party’s leadership a proposal that would automatically discharge judicial nominees from the Judiciary Committee after a certain amount of time if the panel failed to vote on them. Under Nelson’s proposal, after another set period any senator could then call nominees discharged from committee to the floor for a confirmation vote. The proposal would be implemented as a permanent change to Senate rules. Lott said yesterday that he would have no problem supporting such a compromise but that it’s unlikely that Democratic leader Harry Reid (Nev.) would.

This proposal clearly would block what the Republicans did under Clinton, and not let controversial judges out of committee, but assuming Nelson's compromise would make the vote on the floor of the Senate not subject to a filibuster, then I would support that compromise. I believe that the committee has a right to hold hearings and establish facts it wants to bring up when the nomination is debated on the floor of the Senate, and that debate should take place, but I think any President (D or R) is entitled to having his nominations receive an up or down vote.

Nelson’s proposed compromise — or a similar proposal — could attract the support of other Democratic centrists who find supporting judicial filibusters politically risky, or those who do not want to be blamed for obstruction if prominent legislative items are imperiled by Republican use of the so-called nuclear option and Democratic retaliation. Sen. Kent Conrad (D), who represents North Dakota, where Bush enjoyed a double-digit margin of victory last year, said that he would “prefer not to have these battles” over nominees, adding that for red-state Democrats the issue is “certainly more sensitive than for people from other states.”

Let the compromise move forward, and then vote on the nominees.