MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate’s Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by any means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President’s power to make nominations. We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
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.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.
E. Benjamin Nelson John McCain
Mike DeWine John Warner
J. Lieberman Robert Byrd
Susan Collins Mary Landrieu
Mark Pryor Olympia Snowe
Lindsey Graham Ken Salazar
Lincoln Chafee Daniel Inouye
Daniel Inouye?That seems odd. Are the Dems in trouble now in Hawaii?
^ Nah. No moreso than GOoPers in SC, VA or OH. Just a guy who felt a deal was better for his side than risking the nuclear option.
I think that’s right. I don’t really see any of these 14 as signing the deal because they thought it was a great political move (in terms of getting reelected) – it has already mightily pissed off the far-from-the-center elements of both parties (although the right seems more irked than the left). These 14 deserve a lot of credit, IMHO, for putting big targets on their backs in what they saw as service to the Senate and the country, regardless of what anyone thinks of the actual terms of the deal.
Compromise is overrated.Did Henry Clay really accomplish anything, other than delaying the Civil War for a couple of decades? In the meantime, slavery continued and was allowed to spread to new territories.Just because this Gang of 14 happen to be politically in the middle doesn’t make them states(wo)men. Making the tough decisions is what earns you that title–and that is exactly what these clowns refused to do.
Just a guy who felt a deal was better for his side than risking the nuclear option.Shouldn’t that be the leadership’s decision on a major issue like this? If the party is going to function effectively as a caucus, I mean?
^ I don’t know.But, the reality is that the filibuster decision hasn’t been made — and, even if the Dems “won” on the filibuster vote today, the fundamental question of whether or not the filibuster will remain a tool for the minority still wouldn’t have been answered.After all, if the filibuster held this time, it might not hold next time anyway. So long as Frist is at the helm of the majority party, there was no way for the Dems to “win” long term. Inouye bought time… maybe the Dems pick up a few seats in the 2006 election, and it’ll be enough to prevent Frist from making the same move post Nov-06.