Hugh Hewitt & Vox Blogoli 2.2

Response to Hugh Hewitt

The question is:

Whether the Senate majority Republicans should continue to allow the minority Democrats to continue to fillabuster President Bush's judicial nominees (as they have been doing for the past four years)

or

Whether they should use their majority status to end the obstructionism by changing the Senate Rules to strictly accord with the U.S. Constitution which states that a simiple majority shall prevail in such nominations (this is, according to some pundits, referred to as the "nuclear option").

My answer is both "Yes" and "No."

1. One judicial nominee should be presented to the Senate for confirmation (I prefer one nominee over a slate of nominees so as to reduce the legitimacy of the fillabuster).

2. Allow the Democrats begin their fillabuster and allow it to go on for several days, allowing the press to cover the obstructionism and make the Constitutional provisions clear to the public.

3. Call for a vote to change the Senate rules, allowing both Democrat and Republican Senators to speak for and against (these on-the-record statements will provide a gold mine of quotes for mid-term elections.) The key pro-change arguement should be "undermining the Constitution" and "abuse of tradition."

4. Vote the change in the rules and proceed.

5. As is proper, allow Senate members to advise as they speak for or against each nominee as presented. I do not like presenting candidates en masse as a "slate" Such an approach gives the appearance of railroading.

6. Vote each nominee up or down. It may be somewhat time-consuming this way but will, in the end, appear to the public as "fair and balanced."

In short, let a retreating McClellen draw them in and then rout them on the flank with Grant.