filibuster norms

[Jeffrey Segal]

Mark Scarberry writes: "The (Republican Senate Policy) Committee also seems
to suggest that it is not improper to insist on unlimited debate where the
nomination lacks majority support; I suppose the rationale would be that
such debate provides time for a face-saving withdrawal of the nomination or
for persuasion of fence-sitting Senators where such persuasion may affect
the outcome of an ultimate vote."

A less charitable view is that the committee wishes to exclude from its
list of improper filibusters the Republican/Southern Democratic refusal to
bring the Fortas nomination to a vote.  Note that during the recent debate
over the Court of Appeals filibusters, the Republicans' carefully parsed
claim was that no judicial nominee *with majority support on the floor* had
ever been denied a vote.   Of course, they are just guessing that Fortas
lacked majority support. There was in fact a majority to invoke cloture (I
believe the vote was 44-41 to end debate), but not the required
supermajority. This suggests  that he might have passed had a vote been
allowed. Indeed, if the conservative coalition had been confident of defeat
they might well have allowed a vote. Nevertheless, inferences from the
cloture vote are uncertain.  Many Senators did not vote, and some who voted
for cloture had publicly committed to voting against Fortas on the merits.

Note as well that the careful language invoked allows them to exclude from
the "all nominees must receive a vote" claim all of the Clinton Court of
Appeals nominees that Hatch's Judiciary committee denied hearings to.

Jeff

Jeffrey Segal
Distinguished Professor and Chair
Department of Political Science
Stony Brook University
Stony Brook, NY 11794
phone 631-632-7662
fax 631-632-4116
jeffrey.segal at stonybrook.edu
http://www.sunysb.edu/polsci/jsegal/