I learned today that Senator Warner (R-VA) is among the Republicans in the U.S. Senate who compromised on the Democrats’ abuse of the filibuster. Rather than change the procedural rules of the Senate to keep the Democrats from using the filibuster to pervert the “advice and consent” clause of Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution, Warner teamed up with the likes of the sour-faced Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) to see how they could avoid “the nuclear option” — which is a disingenuous moniker for what would actually restore constitutional procedure and order in the Senate. They all signed a “memo of understanding” that would bring three of the President’s judicial nominees to the floor of the Senate for a vote ASAP. That part sounds good, but the odious portion of the compromise would require the President to bring a pool of potential nominees to the Judiciary Committee, which would confer with the President to identify “acceptable, bi-partisan” nominees and weed out extreme ones. Plus, the Democrats reserve the right to filibuster again if the circumstances surrounding a nominee become “extraordinary” enough to warrant it. So this “memo of understanding” not only waters down the powers the Constitution clearly grants to the President to appoint judges, it also clears the path for the Democrats to continue their obstructionism unabated. Tell me, Senator Warner: What is the difference between this “compromise” and just giving the Democrats everything they want? I sure don’t see it.
Anyway, I e-mailed Senator Warner, who I’ve happily supported in the past, to express my disappointment with his actions:
The Honorable John Warner
United States Senate
225 Russell Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Dear Senator Warner:
I wish to express my deep and abiding dismay and disappointment to learn that you are among the Republican senators who have seen fit to compromise with the Democrats on the issue of filibustering President Bush’s judicial nominees.
What the press derisively calls “the nuclear option” is actually nothing less than a restoration of constitutional order and procedure in the Senate that the Democrats have blatantly flouted for partisan political gain. It is, therefore, more properly named “the constitutional option,” and as such I fail to comprehend your apparent desire to avoid its successful implementation. Your participation in the compromise undermines the work the Republican leadership in the Senate has done to put an end to the Democrats’ abuse of the “advice and consent” clause contained in Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution.
As a resident of the Commonwealth of Virginia who is concerned about the Democrats’ obvious disdain for the rule of law, I respectfully request that you withdraw your support from the compromise and vote to end the use of the filibuster to keep the President’s judicial nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.
Robert R. Monti
6304 Ardsley Square, #201A
Virginia Beach, VA 23464
I’ll post any response I get here on tMR.
aka The MonT-SteR