Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter's surprise announcement this week announcing his party affiliation switch from Republican to Democrat is already overshadowed today by news of Supreme Court Justice David Souter's imminent retirement from the bench.
And while nearly everyone is positing that Specter's switch gives President Barack Obama more leeway in his selection of a moderate liberal to replace Souter, a little-noticed Senate Judiciary Committee rule may stand in the way of a complete cakewalk.
The rule, first reported by Politico, requires the vote of at least one minority member in order to break the equivalent of a committee filibuster. Here's the full text of the rule:
V. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate, a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote without further debate passes with ten votes in the affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.
With Specter's decampment to the Democratic side of the aisle, the possibility of his casting a minority vote becomes null and void, helping Republicans thwart Obama's picks from even making it to the Senate floor.
The rules can be amended mid-session, but as David Waldman of Congress Matters points out, this isn't likely for a couple of key reasons. One, that changing the rules would create a controversy and opposition in itself, damaging the potential nominee's chances; and two, that because, as Waldman writes, Sen. Harry Reid (D-N.V.) "shot himself in the foot" when he insisted that Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.):
>"could not be seated without presenting the necessary Secretary of State certification. Reid's words about the sanctity of Senate Rules would come back to haunt him if the Senate changed the Judiciary Committee Rules just to force through a nomination."With Specter's vote now just one among many Democrats on the committee it will be up to the remaining Republicans to hash out whether to put up a bitter fight and stop an Obama nominee to the Senate floor, where he or she will likely encounter scant resistance.
Comments
If the Repubs somehow think they're going to be getting another right-wing lunatic fringer judge like Tony Scalia out of this, then they're sadly mistaken.
In the addled minds of these wingnut goons, unless you oppose reproductive freedom and support stealing elections, you're an extremist.
No wonder their movement has collapsed...
Posted by: DrainYou | May 1, 2009 2:13 PM
If a Republican in the DC objects to an Obama SCOTUS appointee, does it make a sound?
Posted by: steve | May 1, 2009 2:52 PM
Kick Specter to the curb! We don't need an infiltrator in the ranks. Elect a real Democrat to the senate. Remember the Republicans never do anything FOR this country, they only do things TO this country. whiteagle38
Posted by: R. Juneau | May 1, 2009 4:14 PM
Know how some cornered animals really fight to the finish?
This may be what Replicans try to do.
I don't see why the President can't appoint the most far left law professor he can find.
Reagan and Bush got away with putting the far rightists Nono, Uncle Thomas, Scalito and Roberto on with hardly a whimper from the Dems.
I don't see why President has to go "moderate". The other side went extreme every chance they got.
Even the asppointed Bush.
I've never heard of that Judiciary Comm. rule before. Routinely the controversial ones, when they were voted out of committee, were voted out along party lines.
Of course the majority can bottle up a nominee in committee, but how often has that happened in a SCt nomination?
Dems are in the majority and should be able to vote any nominee out promptly.
Unless of course the nominee made remarks to a subordinate about cans of coke and favorite video tapes.
Posted by: ornery | May 1, 2009 8:26 PM