Don't weaken Senate rules on judges

Friday, December 31, 2004

The concept of separation of powers was one of the most ingenious creations of the founders of the United States. It prevents any single part of our national government from becoming too powerful.

That's why the Constitution requires the Senate to "advise and consent" to the appointment of judges nominated by the president.

Now President Bush and his Senate allies are threatening to change the rules that have made this system work.

They are considering changes to Senate rules that would make it easier for Bush to gain approval of his judicial nominees.

Easier than President Clinton, the first President Bush, President Reagan, President Carter, President Ford, President Nixon ...

The proposed changes could have an impact on the nation that will long outlast the Bush presidency. Future presidents -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- will find it easier to force confirmation for judges who otherwise would not be approved.

Presidents -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- have usually selected able men and women for lifetime appointments for to the federal courts. Nearly all judicial appointments from presidents of both parties have been confirmed by the Senate.

But occasionally presidents of both parties have nominated men or women who cannot win support from the Senate. Some have been found less than honorable. Others have lacked experience, aptitude or judicial temperament senators deemed vital. Some have embraced policies senators find unacceptable.

In the last session of Congress, the Senate approved 204 judicial nominees selected by President Bush. Only 10 were rejected. This is a higher percentage of approvals than given to most presidents.

Like presidents before him, Bush objects to the rejections. But unlike his predecessors, he and his Senate allies may move to change the rules to make it easier for his judicial nominations to sail through the process. They are taking aim at Senate rules that require 60 senators to vote to end debate on a judicial nomination and bring it to a vote. Democrats used these rules to prevent confirmation of the 10 candidates they found unacceptable. The same rules have been used in the past by Republicans. Senate majorities change more frequently than Senate rules.

The possibility that 40 senators can stop an unqualified nominee, or one with ideas far outside the mainstream of political thought, has become an important part of the process of checks and balances. The prospect of potential rejection leads presidents to search for judicial candidates who have the experience, temperament and approach to issues that will bring confirmation. Weakening that part of the process of checks and balances would badly serve the nation.

President Bush has announced that he will renominate 20 judges who were not approved in the last session of the Senate, including the 10 who were rejected and others who were neither confirmed nor turned down.

There have been suggestions that if Senate Democrats again reject these nominees, Bush's allies in the Senate may seek to change the rules.

That would be a mistake, which even reasonable Republican senators should reject.

The rules have served the nation well.