Via the Boston Globe: GOP sees momentum in ending judicial filibusters

Republicans believe they have enough votes to end the filibustering of judicial nominees, a landmark change in Senate rules that would clear the way for President Bush to get conservative judges confirmed but could draw a forceful reaction from minority Democrats, who have threatened to use procedural moves to shut down the chamber in retaliation.

Republican activists working on the issue say they have one last obstacle to making the change — their second-ranking Senate leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who is said to be reluctant to take such a radical step. As majority whip, McConnell wields considerable power over the Republican caucus and members would be hesitant to proceed without his approval.

Supporters of the change say McConnell has argued in closed-door leadership meetings that there was not sufficient public clamor for the change. Conservative leaders plan to pressure him while activists work to raise grass-roots anger at Democratic filibusters, procedural maneuvers that have blocked votes on 10 of Bush’s most conservative nominees to federal appeals courts.

Intriguing. I am increasingly of the opinion that not only is this necessary, that the Democrats are foolish for pushing the Republicans to this point.

I remain amazed that the Democrats don’t see the political opportunity here: to allow some of the high profile nominees to have a floor vote, and then use that “reasonableness” to bludgeon the GOP on the other nominees, and further, be in a position to go into the almost certain Supreme Court nomination process as the “reasonable party.” They are, instead, going the other direction, in my opinion.

To wit (via Bloomberg): Democrat Reid Threatens to Block Senate Action Over Rule Change

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid threatened to bring the Senate to a halt if Republicans try to change the chamber’s rules to prevent the minority party from blocking President George W. Bush’s judicial nominees.

In a letter to Majority Leader Bill Frist, Reid wrote that Democrats, who have 44 seats in the 100-member Senate, would refuse to cooperate on any legislation not related to the U.S. military presence in Iraq, national security measures and other “critical government services.'’

“Beyond that very limited scope, however, we will be reluctant to enter into any consent agreement that facilitates Senate activities, even on routine matters,'’ Reid wrote.

First: I would point out that the last politician to shut down the government was Newt Gingrich, and it didn’t work out all that well for him.

Second: I would note that the last Senate Minority Leader to be associated with obstructing judicial nominations was Tom Daschle, and it didn’t work out all that well for him.

Third: I would also underscore that most people won’t notice if the Senate only does the bare minimum. If McConnell thinks there is no clamour for stopping the filibuster, there is likewise no outcry for the Senate to pass a bunch of laws. Indeed, most people are unaware as to what the Senate does on a daily basis anyway. (Indeed, I personally would kind of like it if they onyl did the bare minimum…)

I really think that the Democrats are radically miscalculating here. As I have noted numerous times: they lost Senate seats in 2025 and 2025 and yet have not changed their approach. This makes no sense.