Frist Talks Tough on Senate Rules

The leader of the Senate’s Republican majority said Sunday that he would insist President Bush’s judicial nominees get an up-or-down vote in the full Senate and would not allow them to be blocked by the Democratic minority.

During his first term, the president won approval for 201 federal judges, while 10 of his nominees were blocked by the Democrats. Under the Senate’s rules, members are free to delay action by talking on the Senate floor. A filibuster can be ended only by a vote of 60 senators.

The Senate now has 51 Republicans. The new Congress, convening in January, will have 55 -- a solid majority but still short of the number needed to cut off filibusters.

Appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee denounced this “tyranny of the minority” as “totally unacceptable” and said the Republicans might change the rules next year if the Democrats again resort to blocking votes on judges.

In the past, Frist said, filibusters were used to block legislation, but were rarely used against nominees.

“It’s the first time in over 200 years that candidates who have majority support, more than 50 votes, were denied an up-or-down vote on the floor,” Frist said. “It’s intolerable. There are all sorts of options that we can do.”

One possibility, which critics call the “nuclear option,” is a ruling by the Senate’s presiding officer -- Vice President Dick Cheney -- that a filibuster can be used to block only legislation, not judicial nominations. That would allow nominations to be approved by a majority vote.

“And I think [that] clearly becomes a viable, viable option if we see a minority denying the majority the opportunity to express advice and consent,” Frist said.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) described the possible rule change as “almost like a banana republic.... The time-honored Senate tradition of having two-thirds change a rule is just thrown away.” It would, he said on ABC’s “This Week,” “end any hope of comity.”

But before Frist and the Republicans take on the Democrats, they need to decide whether Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) will become chairman of the Judiciary Committee, which considers judicial nominations.

Conservative activists are seeking to block Specter, a moderate and a supporter of abortion rights, from leading the committee. The day after the election, Specter said in a response to a reporter’s question that he doubted whether judicial nominees who oppose abortion rights could win confirmation in the Senate.

Specter’s comments “were disheartening to me. They were disheartening to a lot of different people,” Frist said Sunday.

The current head of the committee, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), is stepping down because of GOP-imposed term limits on chairmanships. Because Specter is the Republican with the most seniority on the committee, he is in line to replace Hatch.

In a separate TV interview, Specter stressed that he had voted in favor of all of Bush’s judicial nominees over the past four years. And before that, he said, he voted to confirm William H. Rehnquist as chief justice and Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas as justices, all of whom are opposed to the Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

However, conservatives have not forgiven Specter for opposing Robert Bork, President Reagan’s failed Supreme Court nominee. Bork was rejected on a 58-42 vote in 1987.

Two senior Republicans -- Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Richard G. Lugar of Indiana -- said Sunday that they were inclined to support Specter.

Lugar said on CNN’s “Late Edition” that under current Senate rules, Specter was in line to head the committee.

“If Republicans decide they want to change [the rules], that’s a different situation. But they haven’t, and therefore Specter ought to be the chairman,” Lugar said.

On “This Week,” McCain noted that “obviously he is not of the right wing of our party. But I believe Arlen has done a good job.... I think he’ll be confirmed.”

McCain also said that he was not ready to support a change in the filibuster rules, noting it could come back to haunt Republicans.

“I worry about doing away with the rights of the minority in the Senate,” he said. “If I believed the Republicans would be in the majority forever, I’d be far more favorably disposed.”