Democrats in the United States Senate are playing with fire.
This last week we saw them make a mockery of the judicial
nomination process. Starting at 6 p.m. Wednesday evening, the
Senate held a 40-hour talk-a-thon where both sides could air their
qualms about how the U.S. Justice System is in a state of disarray.
The issue at hand was the confirmation of three judges to the
federal appellate bench. This may not sound like too big of a deal,
but what is happening to the process could lead to an absolute
catastrophe in the future.

In the United States Constitution, the Senate is given the
authority of “advice and consent” in the matter of executive
appointments. What the Democrats are essentially doing is shifting
the power of judicial nominations to the Senate rather than the
President. They are doing this by requiring a super majority, or 60
votes. It has been historical precedent that if a nominee came out
of committee, there would be a simple up-or-down vote on his or her
confirmation. In the last year or so, we have been witness to
Senate Democrats filibustering the nomination of six potential
judges.

Why have the Democrats been filibustering these specific people?
One reason they give is that these nominees are “too far out of the
Mainstream.” However, Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen
was elected to her seat by 83 percent of the Texas popular vote.
Judge Carolyn Cuhl has the support of over 100 judges from across
the political spectrum. Justice Janice Rogers-Brown was retained to
serve by 76 percent of California voters. These examples seem far
from out of the mainstream. The Democrats don’t want “biased”
judges misinterpreting the law when it affects liberal special
interests negatively. However, if a liberal judicial activist like
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg were up for confirmation, they would have no
problem giving their votes to her.

I also have to wonder, why would the Democrats pick this group
of nominees? Owen, Cuhl and Rogers-Brown all unanimously received
the American Bar Association rate of “well qualified.” Miguel
Estrada, another casualty of the Democratic filibusters, is a
Honduran-born immigrant who raised himself up by his bootstraps to
get the Bar Association “gold-rating” and then be stopped because
they didn’t feel he was worthy of serving on the D.C. Court of
Appeals. Here are three women and a Latino being rejected by the
party that claims to fight hard for women and minorities. This
obstructionist policy is just plain wrong and, if nothing else, not
very politically savvy.

Where does the U.S. Senate go from here? Sen. Rick Santorum
(R-Pa.) has vowed that Republicans will oppose any future
ultra-liberal justices. He said, “We’ll have our opportunity
someday, and we’ll make sure there’s not another liberal judge —
ever!” This will be extremely detrimental to an already-overworked
federal judicial system. Both sides should claim some fault for
what has happened, but the new precedent of filibustering a
well-respected, highly qualified person simply because you aren’t
in total agreement with some of his or her decisions is wrong.

Congress is wasting time over this. They had hoped to be out of
Washington for winter recess by Nov. 1. That date flew by a several
weeks ago and there is still work to be done. While the minority
party is claiming that their time would be better spent on economic
issues, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist puts it in these terms:
“This year, [Democrats] have forced the Senate to spend an
unprecedented amount of hours, equivalent to two full days, just on
the act of voting for the president’s judicial nominees, 91 percent
of whom were unanimously confirmed. The time spent on unanimous
votes on judges this year is up 1,670 percent over the average for
President Clinton’s judicial nominees.”

Before work can get done, senators on both sides should support
a resolution that would put a strict limit on the use of the
filibusters. Nowhere in the Constitution is that word mentioned,
and I feel it prudent to keep it from becoming an every day
occurrence. Let’s see who will be the real leaders for the
Democratic Party and stop these political games.

Matt Seaholm (mjseaholm@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring
in Political Science.