Atlanta Journal-Constitution - Filibusters Obstruct the Senate's Duty

Op-Ed

By U.S. Senators Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)

Article II of the Constitution clearly states that, as members of the U.S. Senate, it is our responsibility to give "advice and consent" to presidential judicial nominees. It is what this president and every president deserves. It is what the American people want. And most importantly, it is what the U.S. Constitution requires.

Yet for the past two years, the Senate has failed to carry out this duty because the minority party has filibustered several of President Bush's judicial nominees. The minority has blocked the majority from having an up-or-down vote. Not only does the Constitution require an up-or-down vote, denial of an up-or-down vote goes against basic principles of fairness; it also is unprecedented in Senate history.

We believe it is time to end this obstructionism and fulfill our constitutional duty. That's why we are supporting Majority Leader Bill Frist in his effort to restore a 214-year Senate tradition whereby judicial nominees are confirmed by a simple majority.

The Constitution specifies those few times when the Senate must have a two-thirds vote, such as to ratify treaties or override a presidential veto. But when it comes to confirming the president's judicial nominees, the Constitution does not require a two-thirds vote for confirmation. The Constitution clearly states it is the Senate's responsibility to give advice and consent.

We both wholeheartedly support discussion and debate regarding judicial nominees. It is important for each judicial nominee to have his or her qualifications examined, undergo thorough background checks and be asked tough questions. But it is also important that after a time of extensive debate, there must also be a time for a decision.

A judicial nominee's qualifications should matter most, and that nominee's qualifications should be the sole criterion for approving or disapproving a nomination. The debate should be on their legal experience and knowledge. It should not be reduced to partisan politics. It is especially important that judges don't legislate from the bench and that they put the law above their personal views, politics and ideology.

The president has nominated good, decent and highly qualified people for federal judicial posts around the country that desperately need to be filled. All 100 senators should be afforded the opportunity to fulfill their constitutional obligation to cast an up-or-down vote on all nominees.

The people of Georgia and a majority of folks across the country understand the beauty and simplicity of the Constitution and the Founding Fathers' vision for us. They understand the fairness of allowing an up-or-down vote on each nominee. What they don't understand is why the Senate has stalled judicial nominees.

Like many Americans, we believe that our nation's judicial system should be put above partisan politics and under no circumstances should either party obstruct the courts from doing their important work. In this particular case, the Senate must give each nominee a fair, up-or-down vote to fulfill its constitutional duty.

The question is simple and our responsibility clear. Every judge nominated by this president or any president deserves an up-or-down vote. It's the responsibility of the Senate. The Constitution requires it.

Source