Defending the Constitution

The following are excerpts from the speech given by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist at Wednesday evening’s GOPAC dinner:

“The confrontation over judicial filibusters is the single greatest constitutional issue the Senate will debate in our lifetimes. The outcome will determine who is appointed to dozens of vacancies on appeals courts. It will also affect the appointment of one or two or as many as three justices to the Supreme Court.

Those are high stakes. The judges who fill those seats will have a major impact on American jurisprudence for the next 20, 30, 40 years. They will profoundly shape our nation’s body of laws.

But as consequential as that is, as much as we are a nation of laws, we also have a system of government. It is a system of government that has been the world’s envy for more than two centuries. That too is at stake in this debate.

Let me explain. This debate involves the relationship between the Senate and the presidency, and the relationship between the Senate and the courts. It also involves the relationship between the majority and minority parties within the Senate itself.

The Senate debates many consequential issues every year. But no other debate touches upon the grand institutions of American democracy like this one.

The president has the constitutional duty to nominate — and with the advice and consent of the Senate — appoint judges. The confirmation of a judicial nominee requires the support of a majority of senators — usually 51 votes. That is not a partisan statement. It is a statement of fact. It is clear in the Constitution. And it is the practice the Senate followed for 214 years.

But the Democrats decided to abandon that practice in the last Congress. They decided to rewrite the Constitution. They demanded a super majority vote — not 51 votes, but 60 votes — to confirm a judicial nominee. And they launched a leadership-led, partisan campaign of judicial obstruction by filibuster.

Their goal was to deny nominees who didn’t ascribe to a liberal activist agenda. With the judicial filibuster as their tool, a minority of senators vetoed 10 of the President’s judicial nominees. This judicial obstruction was unprecedented.

It was a radical and dangerous departure. It realigned the separation of powers between our three branches of government. It undermined the checks and balances as designed in the Constitution. It denied 100 senators their right to advise and consent. It threatened the fairness and independence of the federal judiciary. And it thwarted the democratically expressed will of the American people.

No leader of principle — regardless of party — can let such obstruction stand. And let me say: no matter the price I pay, I won’t let judicial obstruction stand.

I will stand on principle. And I will hold to it.

The principle is simple. It’s straight forward. It’s unequivocal. It doesn’t require a cartoon character named Phil A. Buster to explain it. It is the principle that every judicial nominee that comes to the Senate floor deserves a fair up-or-down vote.

Debate the nominee. Then vote. Vote yes. Vote no. Confirm the nominee. Reject the nominee. But give the nominee the courtesy ? the respect ? the decency ? the dignity ? the fairness of a vote. That’s it.

It is so crystal clear to me. That’s the way the Framers designed the Senate to work. That’s the way the Senate worked for 214 years. That’s the way the Senate should work today and in the future. And I know this may not be the right time to say this. And I know some of you may disagree. But judicial nominees that come to the floor deserve up-or-down votes regardless of which party controls the White House or the Senate.

Story Continues →