Conservatives Still Seething Over Senate Compromise on Judicial Nominees
by Jody Brown, Bill Fancher, and Rusty Pugh
May 26, 2005
(AgapePress) - Conservative anger over the Senate deal on judicial nominees continues to grow. Priscilla Owen was confirmed on Wednesday (May 25) and two others will likely be approved in the coming days. But some feel the pro-family movement has still suffered a major setback.On pretty much a party line vote, Texas Judge Priscilla Owen was confirmed 56-43 by the U.S. Senate to a seat on the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Described by one conservative group as an "extraordinarily qualified judge" who should have been confirmed soon after her nomination four years ago, Owen is the first of three of President Bush's judicial nominees guaranteed an up-or-down vote under a controversial bipartisan compromise achieved last week. The others are presumed to be Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor.
According to the "deal" between seven Republican and seven Democratic senators, the option remains to filibuster subsequent nominees under "extraordinary circumstances." Conservatives have voiced concern that caveat could result in a stalemate should President Bush have the opportunity to nominate judges to fill open slots on the U.S. Supreme Court -- something that could happen as soon as this summer.
Dr. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberties Commission shares that concern.
| | 
Dr. Richard Land |
"Whether this compromise is a serious defeat in the move toward a more conservative judiciary will be tested in coming months when we see if a majority of President Bush's nominees get an up-or-down vote and if the filibuster is rarely, if ever, used," says Land. And he admits being somewhat fearful the compromise might crumble in the face of one or more Supreme Court nominations in the near term."If that is the case, then Senator [John] McCain will bear the lion's share of the responsibility for impairing the president's ability to get confirmation votes for the nominees he feels are most qualified for the Supreme Court," the ERLC president says. McCain is one of the GOP leaders who was party to the compromise, which some say undercut Majority Leader Bill Frist.
"[Senator] Frist had the courage to challenge the status quo and hold the [Democratic] senators' feet to the fire," Land continues. "Had it not been for [his] steadfast leadership, we still would not have confirmation votes on Owen, Brown, and Pryor. Conservatives who are unhappy with this compromise are going to blame McCain, not Frist."
'Shelf Life of a Twinkie'
The chief counsel for Concerned Women for America believes the Democrat-led filibuster of judicial nominees would be a thing of the past had the deal not been struck. As it stands, the tactic remains an option for liberals in the Senate who would still desire to block any of the president's conservative nominees.
CWA's Jan LaRue says "the fact that the Democrats finally agreed to give Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and Bill Pryor an up-or-down vote -- knowing that she and they will be confirmed -- exposes the Democrats' vicious and deceitful attacks on these nominees as a total sham."
She also doubts the commitment of the Democrat senators who made the deal. That compromise, she says, "doesn't have the shelf life of a Twinkie."
Judie Brown of American Life League has her own opinion of those among the Republican contingent who concocted the arrangement. Brown believes the compromise proves the Republican Party is not as pro-life as some would believe it to be.
"[T]oo many Republicans have no courage whatsoever, and they've betrayed the principles upon which they say they stand as part of the Republican Party," the ALL president says. "This is really a question of who will be the next Supreme Court justice."
Brown contends the compromise essentially permits Democrats to "have a heyday" when the next Supreme Court appointment comes up. "And in the meantime, [it allows them] to be a namby-pamby about three nominees. I think it's a disgrace not only for us as pro-lifers but for the nation," she says.
In similar terms, Manny Miranda of the Coalition to End Judicial Filibusters considers the deal a constitutional setback. "What we have in the Senate compromise is an agreement that dishonors the Constitution, that ignores the result of an election, and that forgets that Democrats have already successfully blocked four nominees who had to withdraw their names, including Miguel Estrada," he notes.
Miranda points out that four nominees have withdrawn, and that the compromise sacrifices two others. Consequently, he points out, it is a trade of six approved for six blocked.
"So it's a horse trade of the worst kind," he remarks, "and horse trades might be acceptable in general if it weren't that the ultimate victim was the Constitution."
Miranda believes the deal also has weakened the presidency. Majority Leader Frist maintains the option to change Senate rules blocking judicial filibusters is still on the table.
