WASHINGTON — Brigham Young University general counsel Tom Griffith will have to wait awhile to get fitted for his new judicial robes.
The Senate confirmation of the man President Bush has tapped for the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., considered the nation's most powerful court except for the U.S. Supreme Court, is on hold as Republicans and Democrats haggle over seven other judicial nominees opposed by Democrats.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated earlier this week that Democrats would not filibuster the Griffith nomination, and since Republicans are all united behind Griffith the confirmation would seem a done deal.
But the political tempest over the other nominations has apparently caught Griffith in the crossfire.
"This is a first step, but there are seven other highly qualified nominees who have been filibustered — who deserve an up or down vote as well," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., of Reid's comments. "I remain committed to this fundamental principle and the return to 214 years of Senate tradition."
One reading of the politics behind that statement is that Griffith's confirmation by the full Senate might have to wait until Republicans either negotiate a deal with Democrats to end the filibusters on the other seven nominees or change the Senate rules so that the majority party can simply end debate — the so-called "constitutional option" if you are a Republican or the "nuclear option" if you are a Democrat.
On Monday, Reid pledged that Democrats will use the filibuster responsibly, saying, "We will oppose bad nominees, but we will only block unacceptable nominees."
And Griffith, he suggested, is a bad nominee, not an unacceptable one.
"Well, here is a nominee (Griffith) to the most important federal court of appeals in the country, and we are prepared to move forward," Reid said.
Reid offered a "unanimous consent agreement" whereby the Senate would proceed to the Griffith nomination after voting on the supplemental appropriations bill, and that 10 hours of debate would be allotted to the nomination.
"Following that debate we are willing to have an up-down vote on this controversial nominee to the D.C. circuit," Reid said.
Republicans did not bite on the offer.
On Tuesday, Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, took direct aim at his Democratic colleagues, using their own quotes against them to show how some of them once favored a majority rule to end debates when they were in the majority, and how others favored giving judicial nominees an unqualified yes or no vote.
"These filibusters are about defeating judicial nominations, not debating them," Hatch said on the Senate floor. "The minority rejects every proposal for debating and voting on nominations it targets for defeat."
Democrats argue that filibusters are a time-honored Senate tradition used as a "check and balance" on the majority. But Republicans countered that the filibuster has never been used on presidential nominations before now, and they want to "return" to the Senate tradition of giving all nominees a yes or no vote.
"The message, at one time, seemed to be: let us debate, and let us vote," Hatch said. "That should be the standard no matter which party controls the White House or the Senate."
"Full, fair, vigorous debate is one of the hallmarks of this body, and it should drive how we evaluate a president's judicial nominations," he added.
Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., chided Hatch, accusing the Utah senator of betraying his own conscience on the matter.
"He's torn," Schumer said. "He knows this is wrong. He knows it's wrong but he's going along anyway."
The filibuster and the threatened rule change has deeply divided the Senate along partisan lines and generated a fair amount of name-calling, truth twisting and political hot air. When Reid visited Utah recently, he reportedly attacked Hatch on his home turf — something Hatch did not appreciate.
"Perhaps those who dismiss their opponents as liars, losers or lapdogs have nothing else to offer in this debate," he said.
E-mail: spang@desnews.com