This
Washington Post piece by Washington Monthly blogger
Kevin Drum from last January is one of the few
anywhere that actually
examines the background of the filibuster fight, detailing the list of rules that the Republicans used heavily to block Clinton nominations but then quickly invalidated -- barring their use by Democrats -- when Bush came to office.
There are plenty of ways, in the past, that even a single Republican Senator could derail a judicial nomination indefinitely. No up-and-down votes were required. Nominees could be blocked without a hearing, in fact.
Originally, after Republicans gained control of the Senate in the 1994 elections and Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch assumed control of the Judiciary Committee, the rule regarding judicial nominees was this: If a single senator from a nominee's home state objected to (or "blue-slipped") a nomination, it was dead. This rule made it easy for Republicans to obstruct Clinton's nominees.
But in 2001, when a Republican became president, Hatch suddenly reversed course and decided that it should take objections from both home-state senators to block a nominee. That made it harder for Democrats to obstruct George W. Bush's nominees.
In early 2003 Hatch went even further: Senatorial objections were merely advisory, he said. Even if both senators objected to a nomination, it could still go to the floor for a vote.
Finally, a few weeks later, yet another barrier was torn down: Hatch did away with "Rule IV," which states that at least one member of the minority has to agree in order to end discussion about a nomination and move it out of committee.
Those are good, solid facts. No finely-tuned talking-point based quotes needed, no he-said-she-said reporting. Those were the rules for Clinton nominations, and the Republicans used them to block over sixty nominees. Once Bush came to office, Hatch had a visionary (and remarkably predictable) change of heart and began reversing each rule, one after the other, for Bush nominees as the need arose. What a hero, that Orrin Hatch is! What a pillar of leadership! What a model of American democracy! Surely, his legacy will be remembered forever beside Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, and the guy who invented reverse-interest mortgages!
Ahem. Now, aside from reminding the world what a colossal, hypocritical jackass the good Senator Orrin Hatch is, in his recent wailings and protestations (hey, I call 'em like I see 'em -- I'm a whale biologist*), I just have to ask...
How often have you, in the Washington-based press that is
so in touch with the wheelings and dealings of our government, because they're specifically
paid to be in touch -- how often have you, from the Beltway pundits that grace your newspaper pages and are paraded on your television screens like the Grand Dukes and Dutchesses of Political Knowledge -- how often have you heard
anything that succinctly and clearly explains these simple few background facts and gives an actual, nonpartisan context to this now-upon-us
nuclear option? As opposed to hurling the regurgitated "Republicans say" and "Democrats claim" talking points that have been clogging up fax machines up and down the Eastern Seaboard?
"Blue slips" isn't a triviality of the debate, it's a significant reason why the filibuster fight is happening right now. Likewise, "Rule IV" was a (probably far more important) guarantee that nominees to reach the floor would have at least some token support from both parties, and wouldn't get filibustered.
Here's a spectacular -- and I do mean spectacular -- example of press incompetence when it comes to giving any meaningful information on important stories. A worldwide Google News search:
Filibuster -- "about 14,500" results. There's your baseline of how many stories are out there.
Filibuster + "blue slip" -- 27 results. Nearly all of them are opinion pieces or press releases.
Filibuster + "Rule IV" -- 3 results. ThinkProgress, Slate, and a Knight-Ridder distributed editorial that appears to have picked up by a whopping two newspapers.
Yeah, I'm ticked off. Why shouldn't I be?
Why is it up to a blogger and a few scattered editorialists to describe the events of a mere four years ago, in order to provide even the most basic shreds of political and historical context to these recent events?
[* Note: Author is not an actual whale biologist. That was pop culture reference #17,872 in your guidebook.]