Senate Votes to End Filibuster on Justice Owen

The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the filibuster of Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla R. Owen, paving the way for her confirmation to the federal appellate bench. But even as Republicans appeared to win that battle, conservatives heaped scorn on the centrist senators who had scuttled the larger fight over judicial filibusters by cutting their own deal.

Democrats and Republicans voted 81 to 18 to bring debate on Owen’s nomination to an end. Her confirmation vote is scheduled for today, and the nominations of two other previously filibustered judicial candidates were placed on the calendar for coming weeks.

On the day they originally had scheduled a dramatic showdown over the filibuster -- a procedural stalling tactic that requires 60 votes to overcome -- Senate Republicans worked instead to portray the compromise by seven Democrats and seven Republicans as a positive development.

“By exposing the injustice of judicial obstruction in the last Congress, we have made progress on restoring a core constitutional principle: All judicial nominees deserve fair up-or-down votes,” said Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.). The majority leader had led the GOP drive to change the Senate rules to prevent Democrats from filibustering future judicial nominees. “I hope that progress continues,” Frist said.

President Bush hailed the scheduled confirmation vote on Owen but did not mention the compromise agreement -- negotiated without the blessing of either party’s leadership.

“Over four years ago, I put Judge Owen’s name up to the Senate for confirmation to the 5th [Circuit] Court of Appeals,” Bush said in a hastily scheduled photo opportunity with the Texas justice. “Thanks to the good work of the leader ... Judge Owen is finally going to get an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor.”

Owen initially was nominated to the appellate court in May 2001, but was defeated in committee. Renominated in 2003, she was among 10 appellate court candidates whose confirmation votes were blocked by Democratic filibuster threats during Bush’s first term. The president resubmitted seven of those nominees, including Owen, in February.

Democrats have blamed the president’s decision to renominate controversial judges for provoking the confrontation. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats called on Bush to take a more conciliatory approach.

“We urge you to make clear publicly, and as soon as possible, that in a renewed spirit of bipartisanship, consultation and compromise, you intended to engage in real consultation with the Senate on future judicial nominations,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and other Democratic leaders said in a letter to the president.

Despite efforts on both sides to portray matters in the best light, it was clear that Republicans felt they had lost more than they gained from the compromise on judicial nominations.

“It is clear to me this agreement among these 14 -- to which 86 senators were not a party -- does not solve anything. What it does do is perhaps delay the inevitable,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Conservatives rained invective on the seven Republicans involved in the compromise.

One conservative group, Concerned Women for America, disparaged them as the “seven dwarfs” and predicted that they would pay at the polls for their diminished stature.

“What I’m hearing from the grass-roots organizations is that those who are up for reelection in 2006 ought to update their resumes, and anybody with White House aspirations ought to realize they’re in the doghouse,” said Jan LaRue, the group’s chief counsel.

Of the seven Republicans who worked on the deal, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Olympia J. Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island are up for reelection in 2006, and John McCain of Arizona is frequently mentioned as a potential 2008 presidential candidate. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John W. Warner of Virginia and Susan Collins of Maine are up for reelection in 2008.

“I can tell you about the right: They pretty much hate my guts right now,” Graham said.

The agreement preserves the right to filibuster judicial nominations in “extraordinary circumstances” while ensuring confirmation votes on three judicial nominees whom the Democrats had blocked.

That fell short of what conservative activists had sought: an up-or-down vote on every one of Bush’s judicial nominees. During the president’s first term, 10 of his 52 picks for the federal appellate courts were filibustered by Democrats, who considered the jurists to be conservative extremists.

“We have to continue to excite our troops and make them understand this is not the last battle,” Paul Weyrich, chairman of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said Tuesday.

Behind the collective game face, however, some activists were seething.

“I’m not going to sugarcoat this; the deal stinks,” said Kay Daly, president of the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary. “We’ve now gone from 41 senators controlling the Senate with the filibuster to 14 senators controlling the majority and dictating to the president of the United States.”

Similar criticism -- from the other end of the ideological spectrum -- was directed toward the seven Democrats involved in the deal. The Congressional Black Caucus, for example, called the agreement “more of a capitulation than a compromise.”

But for the most part, the Democrats had an easier time, enjoying praise and congratulations from their colleagues during their weekly luncheon to discuss policy.

“There’s no celebration. We never looked at this as a partisan victory, but as a victory for the work of the Senate and its people so we can move forward,” said Ben Nelson of Nebraska, one of the lead Democrats in the compromise.

The other Democrats involved were Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, Sen. Ken Salazar of Colorado and Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana.

California’s two Democratic senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, both said they supported the compromise agreement but planned to vote against Owen’s confirmation to the federal appellate court in New Orleans. However, they split on the vote to end the filibuster of Owen.

“I could have gone either way” on the vote to end debate, Boxer said. “But I haven’t changed my opinion of her, so I voted no.”

Feinstein took the opposite approach. “I agreed to vote [to end debate] to demonstrate my good faith in wanting to put an end to the standoff over judges,” she said. “However, I still believe Priscilla Owen should not be confirmed for a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, and I will vote against her nomination.”

David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, was one of the few conservative leaders who adopted a softer tone. He said the Republicans’ fortunes with the conservative movement would depend, ironically, on Democrats.

“In a sunny scenario -- in which the so-called deal holds, the president appoints a conservative to the Supreme Court and there is no filibuster -- then these guys look pretty good,” Keene said.

Some analysts doubted whether the conservative uproar would harm any of the Republican senators politically. The Republicans who helped to produce the compromise already were known as moderates or had shown an independent streak.

In Graham’s case, for example, Steve Wainscott, a Clemson University political scientist, said he expected the South Carolina senator to easily weather the fallout from the right.

“His role in crafting the compromise simply adds to his reputation of independence, something that South Carolinians seem to value in their politicians,” Wainscott said.

Times staff writer Warren Vieth contributed to this report.