Senator Frist, We Strongly Urge You To Act.

The story below comes from this morning’s Washington Times. Both Thomas and I stated it would not take long for the Democrats to break their word.

Senate Democrats are in the early stages of several filibusters against executive nominees that they hope will be more effective than those they have abandoned in recent weeks against President Bush's judicial appointments.

The new filibusters are not based publicly on ideologies -- as with several of the nominees to the federal bench -- but on demands for additional information from the administration.

Already stalled under that strategy is John R. Bolton, Mr. Bush's pick to be ambassador to the United Nations.

Also, Democrats led by Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts stopped a federal appeals court nominee last week by demanding that more of his unpublished legal opinions be provided to them.

Mr. Bush nominated U.S. District Judge Terrence W. Boyle of North Carolina more than four years ago to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond. Judge Boyle had a hearing more than three months ago and has been scheduled numerous times for a Senate Judiciary Committee vote.

Last week, however, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee demanded that Judge Boyle's nomination wait another week and that the Bush administration produce more of his unpublished opinions. Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, Pennsylvania Republican, reluctantly agreed.

"Senator Kennedy was very upset with the failure of the unpublished opinions to be unearthed, or at least some of them," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat.

Mr. Schumer was asked whether Democrats would filibuster Judge Boyle if Republicans don't produce additional unpublished opinions.
"We'll have to see what happens," he said. "First, we want to see if there's a good-faith effort to get them. It is hard to get unpublished opinions.

"Second, when we get them, if there's no smoking gun it's not going to matter," Mr. Schumer said. "If we think there really is a smoking gun -- that we need more time to go forward -- so be it."
The strategy is similar to the one used against Mr. Bolton.

When Mr. Bolton was nominated, many Democrats announced their opposition because of his harsh statements about the United Nations.

But by the time Mr. Bolton's nomination reached the floor three weeks ago, Democrats had boiled down all their objections to one demand. They refused to allow a final up-or-down vote until the White House releases specific information about Mr. Bolton's time as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security.

When the White House refused, Democrats voted to filibuster, arguing that it was a matter of protecting the Senate as an institution.
"I think it's important that we recognize that the White House has an obligation to respond to a branch of government that is its equal," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, said last week. "That's hard for the administration to accept, but I think they're going to have to accept that before this Bolton thing moves on any more."

The strategy also mirrors Democrats' initial filibuster against a Bush nominee, that of Washington lawyer Miguel Estrada, who was nominated to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. He withdrew his name after more than two years awaiting confirmation.

Democrats began that filibuster with a demand for legal work product from his years in the Clinton administration.
When a deal was reached last month on judicial filibusters, nominees such as Judge Boyle were not mentioned.
Democrats have expressed displeasure about Judge Boyle's conservative legal thinking, but whether that amounts to an "extraordinary circumstance" -- grounds for filibuster under last month's deal -- has not been determined.
If Democrats mount a filibuster that Republican signers to the deal consider frivolous, then the "nuclear option" to ban judicial filibusters altogether would be back on the table.

Three things before I begin my rant. First, The Democrats are not getting the records on Bolton. They are top-secret, and quite confidential, and no one in the Senate—aside from those on the Foreign Relations Committee—should have any access to those files. The Democrats cannot be trusted to allow only those people to see it. Reid made that point for us just weeks ago when he admitted he had seen a classified FBI file on Judge Saad; a no-no for sure as Reid does not serve on the Judiciary Committee.

Second, the "unpublished opinions" that the Democrats are demanding may never be found. Hence the "unpublished" part of the problem. So, are they going to continue holding these nominees up because those opinions cannot be found?

Third, in response to Reid. The administration has worked with it’s "equal" for 229 years, despite all the partisan garbage that arose from the Senate. The Senate, Sen. Reid, is the organization right now that does not wish to follow the rules, or did you miss the comments of Messrs. Schumer and Graham over the weekend? (If our readers did, read the piece I put up yesterday.)

And now, I turn to Sen. Frist. He is not bound by this deal. He did not sign it. He did not endorse it. And there should be some retaliation taken against the seven members of his party that signed onto the deal. I would call the caucus together, and start removing them from their committees to begin with. Many people say that this move cannot happen. Yes it can. It requires a calling of the Republican caucus, but it can be done. It will not be easy, and he is going to take some heat, but it is time that Frist reminds these people who is in charge in the Senate.

Remove them from their committees. Remove them as a committee chairman. Virtually seal them out of the loop with anything other than their vote. They, technically, did not break a law or a rule, so censure would not be warranted, but punishment for this sort of back-stabbing is necessary.

We may not act like the Democrats do, but we can take a few hints from them. LBJ, when he was in the Senate, ran the show, and everyone knew it. He controlled the party with an iron fist, and was intimidating enough to back the other side down. I am not saying that Frist should be a bully, as LBJ was, but some testicular fortitude would be nice, in addition to reeling in these rogue representatives.

People poo-pooed Thomas and I when we looked at this agreement, and we stated that these fourteen now have virtual control of the Senate. If Frist continues to play these games, he does not get to determine what is and what is not "extraordinary circumstances". The seven Republicans that signed the deal decide that. Granted, Bolton is not a judge, but he is being filibustered nonetheless. And as the deal was specifically about judges, Frist still has the Option open to him over Bolton.

So, we are now down to diddling and soul-searching. Should he pull the trigger? Should he not pull the trigger? Hem and haw, back and forth. Here is a hint for the esteemed senator: The more contention you face over decisions means that you are probably correct, and the rest of the world is wrong.

Do the right thing, Sen. Frist. Pull the trigger and break this unconstitutional hold the Democrats have in the Senate, and break the backs of the seven that stabbed the party in the back.

The Bunny ;)