G.O.P. Senator Issues Letter Urging Vote Against Bolton - New York Times
The Ohio Republican whose opposition to John R. Bolton nearly stalled his nomination in committee circulated a letter on Tuesday urging colleagues to vote against Mr. Bolton when his name reaches the Senate floor, possibly this week.
The renewed opposition from the senator, George V. Voinovich, was addressed to all his colleagues, but it was aimed particularly at fellow Republicans in a chamber in which the party holds a 55-to-44 majority. At least five Republicans would have to join Mr. Voinovich in opposing Mr. Bolton's nomination as United Nations ambassador in order to defeat it.
In the letter, Mr. Voinovich said that while he had been "hesitant to push my views on my colleagues" during his six years in the Senate, he felt "compelled to share my deep concerns" about the nomination.
"In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations," Mr. Voinovich wrote. He urged colleagues to "put aside our partisan agenda and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our nation's best interests guide us."
The White House remains strongly in favor of Mr. Bolton's nomination, and it is unusual for a Republican to break ranks so publicly with President Bush.
Meanwhile, seven Senators from the Republican Party and seven from the Democrats agreed to end the controversy over the filibuster. All of these Senators will take their lumps for this. They deserve credit for heroes of the hour for preventing a Constitutional crisis and further erosion of credibility in government.
The Democrats were: Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Sen. Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana.
The Republicans were: Sen. John McCain of Arizona, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John W. Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Olympia J. Snowe and Susan Collins, both of Maine.
Thank you Honorable Senators. What the agreement was still is a closely guarded secret. Here is some speculation about what the deal might be.
Disarmament in the Senate
The pact they forged will preserve the minority's right to filibuster - block a bill or nomination unless a supermajority of 60 senators votes to proceed. To get there, the seven Democrats involved in the negotiations paid a high price - allowing the nominations of three of President Bush's most controversial nominees to the federal Courts of Appeals to go through to an up-or-down vote that they will undoubtedly win.
That would mean, among other things, that Janice Rogers Brown of California will be joining the critical Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Readers will recall that Justice Brown has called the New Deal a "socialist revolution" and praised a series of early 20th-century Supreme Court decisions in which worker health and safety laws were struck down as infringing on the rights of business. In her current job, she once wrote a dissent in which she claimed that ordering a rental car company supervisor to stop calling Hispanic employees by racial epithets was a violation of the company's free speech rights.
In return, the seven Republicans appear to have promised - or at least vaguely indicated - that they will protect the Democrats' right to stop progress on two other nominees, including William Myers III, a former lobbyist for mining interests who would otherwise end up serving on a California appeals court that considers many critical environmental cases. Two other extremely controversial nominations that are not as far down the pipeline may not ever reach the Senate floor. Both sides agreed that they would not support any future filibuster on judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances," which were left undefined.
At bottom, the agreement is about postponing any ultimate showdown until the president is called on to nominate a Supreme Court justice. That seems sensible. The Supreme Court is what everyone has had in mind during all this jockeying over procedure.
Bolton | Filibuster
May 25, 2005
G.O.P. Senator Issues Letter Urging Vote Against Bolton
By DOUGLAS JEHL
WASHINGTON, May 24 - The Ohio Republican whose opposition to John R. Bolton nearly stalled his nomination in committee circulated a letter on Tuesday urging colleagues to vote against Mr. Bolton when his name reaches the Senate floor, possibly this week.
The renewed opposition from the senator, George V. Voinovich, was addressed to all his colleagues, but it was aimed particularly at fellow Republicans in a chamber in which the party holds a 55-to-44 majority. At least five Republicans would have to join Mr. Voinovich in opposing Mr. Bolton's nomination as United Nations ambassador in order to defeat it.
In the letter, Mr. Voinovich said that while he had been "hesitant to push my views on my colleagues" during his six years in the Senate, he felt "compelled to share my deep concerns" about the nomination.
"In these dangerous times, we cannot afford to put at risk our nation's ability to successfully wage and win the war on terror with a controversial and ineffective ambassador to the United Nations," Mr. Voinovich wrote. He urged colleagues to "put aside our partisan agenda and let our consciences and our shared commitment to our nation's best interests guide us."
The White House remains strongly in favor of Mr. Bolton's nomination, and it is unusual for a Republican to break ranks so publicly with President Bush.
"We are confident John Bolton will be confirmed," Erin Healey, a spokeswoman for the White House, said Tuesday. "Many highly respected people who know him well support his nomination, and we urge the Senate to act quickly."
In addition to sending out his letter, Mr. Voinovich was also making telephone calls and meeting with other Republican senators to urge them to oppose Mr. Bolton's nomination, according to two Senate Republican officials. A copy of his letter, dated May 23 but not circulated until Tuesday, was provided by a Senate Democratic aide opposed to the nomination.
The Senate's Republican leaders on Tuesday were trying to win agreement from Democrats on a plan that could allow a vote on Mr. Bolton by the end of the week. Senate Democrats have strongly opposed the nomination, and the party's leaders in the Senate were weighing possible moves to defeat it or procedural moves to delay or prevent a vote.
It is not clear whether any Republicans might join Mr. Voinovich in breaking ranks with the White House.
Among the 10 Republicans on the Senate committee, three joined Mr. Voinovich in expressing reservations about Mr. Bolton's nomination. The Republicans on the panel agreed only to send the nomination to the full Senate without an endorsement, an unusual move.
On Tuesday, however, spokesmen for two of those Republicans, Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, said their bosses expected to vote in favor of Mr. Bolton when his name comes before the full Senate. A spokeswoman for the third, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, said the senator had told reporters from her home state that she was "likely to support Bolton's nomination on the floor."
A spokesman for another Republican, John Thune of South Dakota, said Tuesday afternoon that Mr. Thune "hasn't made any decisions" about Mr. Bolton's nomination. Mr. Thune, a freshman, has clashed with the administration over a Defense Department plan to close a major military base in his state.
One Democrat, Senator Barbara Boxer of California, had sought to block a Senate vote on Mr. Bolton, saying she would oppose any vote until the State Department provided documents related to the nomination that the department has so far refused to hand over.
On Tuesday afternoon, however, a spokeswoman for Ms. Boxer said she had decided to lift a hold on Mr. Bolton's nomination. Ms. Boxer's spokeswoman said she would join with Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware in agreeing to a Republican plan to move toward a vote on Mr. Bolton after allowing up to 40 hours of debate.
It appeared unlikely that any Senate Democrat would try to use a filibuster to block a vote, Senate Democratic officials said.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 25, 2005
Disarmament in the Senate
If nothing else, the deal to end the Senate's "nuclear option" showdown was heartening in that it did demonstrate that moderates still exist in Washington, and actually have the capacity to work together to get things done.
On the other hand, it's not terribly encouraging to see how low the bar is for joining the moderate camp. The seven Republicans who played the critical role in brokering an agreement include several staunch conservatives whose claim to centrism lies in their desire to avoid devoting the rest of the year to procedural battles between the hamstrung Democrats and the overbearing Republican majority.
The pact they forged will preserve the minority's right to filibuster - block a bill or nomination unless a supermajority of 60 senators votes to proceed. To get there, the seven Democrats involved in the negotiations paid a high price - allowing the nominations of three of President Bush's most controversial nominees to the federal Courts of Appeals to go through to an up-or-down vote that they will undoubtedly win.
That would mean, among other things, that Janice Rogers Brown of California will be joining the critical Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Readers will recall that Justice Brown has called the New Deal a "socialist revolution" and praised a series of early 20th-century Supreme Court decisions in which worker health and safety laws were struck down as infringing on the rights of business. In her current job, she once wrote a dissent in which she claimed that ordering a rental car company supervisor to stop calling Hispanic employees by racial epithets was a violation of the company's free speech rights.
In return, the seven Republicans appear to have promised - or at least vaguely indicated - that they will protect the Democrats' right to stop progress on two other nominees, including William Myers III, a former lobbyist for mining interests who would otherwise end up serving on a California appeals court that considers many critical environmental cases. Two other extremely controversial nominations that are not as far down the pipeline may not ever reach the Senate floor. Both sides agreed that they would not support any future filibuster on judicial nominees except in "extraordinary circumstances," which were left undefined.
At bottom, the agreement is about postponing any ultimate showdown until the president is called on to nominate a Supreme Court justice. That seems sensible. The Supreme Court is what everyone has had in mind during all this jockeying over procedure. Although the appeals courts have an increasing role in the judicial system, a Supreme Court nomination is the only time that most Americans really focus on confirmation issues. Perhaps the seven Republicans who worked hard to come up with this peace plan will feel invested enough in their achievement to use their considerable leverage to press Mr. Bush to make a reasonable, centrist choice.
The agreement is among only the 14 senators who signed on, including Robert Byrd, 87, and John Warner, 78, whose weekend seminar on Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper No. 66 must have been one for the record books. But they control the numbers necessary to either block a filibuster or approve the "nuclear option," which would amend the rules of the Senate to ban the filibuster when it comes to judicial nominees. The Republican leadership and the White House still argue that all the president's judicial nominees deserve a straight up-or-down vote.
While the idea of letting the majority rule is at the heart of much in American democracy, it has little to do with the Senate, where some members represent 10 times as many people as others. There is absolutely nothing unfair about allowing a minority that actually represents more American people to veto lifetime appointments of judges who are far outside the mainstream of American thinking.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
No comments:
Post a Comment