It’s more than judges

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid doesn’t seem to understand George W. Bush won the presidential election last November. He also doesn’t get it that Republicans picked up five Senate seats. That’s called a mandate.

Still, Mr. Reid believes he can negotiate, even dictate, which judicial appointments can be voted in the Senate.

That’s utterly preposterous, and it’s one of many reasons Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist must put Mr. Reid and the other filibustering Senate Democrats in their place at last.

There is no political or constitutional reason every presidential judicial nomination should not be voted on. That includes nominees for the Supreme Court, the appellate courts and on down the line. But the Senate Democrats stand in the way of nearly every nominee the president sends over, vowing even to refilibuster many he nominated in his first term.

But before we get into what can be done, let’s carefully look at the Democrats’ broader strategy — a carefully constructed plan to obstruct and undermine the conservatives’ postelection reform agenda for both foreign and domestic policy.

After blocking the judicial nominees, the Democrats will try to obstruct all pro-growth, pro-business legislation that makes it to the Senate. On the energy bill, they could try to filibuster any legislated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). They could hold up the budget because they don’t want to extend the president’s tax cuts on capital gains and dividends. If a good asbestos bill comes around, they could obstruct that, too. The Central American Free Trade Agreement and other free-trade measures could be stopped.

It’s already more than judges. Sen. Max Baucus, Montana Democrat, has a hold on all Treasury Department nominations, including one deputy secretary, two undersecretaries and three assistant secretaries. One of the assistant positions oversees terrorist money flows.

Why is Mr. Baucus doing this? He doesn’t agree with U.S. policy on Cuba. Instead of filling some important posts in an important government department, he’s aiding the Castro-Chavez axis.

Make no mistake: The Democratic strategy is to attempt to encroach on presidential authority in every single area. Why do you think John Bolton is having such a tough time being confirmed as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations? Judges, Treasury, Mr. Bolton — they’re all linked.

There’s a way around this, of course. It’s called the “nuclear option,” and it has been used before — by Senate Democrats.

In 1975, Sen. Robert Byrd, West Virginia Democrat, introduced a bill co-sponsored by liberal Republicans Robert Griffin and Hugh Scott, along with old liberal Democratic warhorse Mike Mansfield. The bill was meant to change the standing rules and permit “limitation of debate” (i.e., ending a filibuster) with a three-fifths vote of the whole Senate.

The Byrd resolution was postponed indefinitely. But in March 1975, a bill sponsored by then-Sen. Walter Mondale included the same language as the Byrd bill, and it passed. Any change of the standing rules today is labeled the “nuclear option.” Back then, a rule-change seemed only a small firecracker.

According to reports, Mr. Byrd also changed Senate precedents with simple up-or-down majority votes in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987. In other words, there is a clear history of rule-changing by the very same “nuclear option” Mr. Byrd vehemently objects to today.

But once the bomb, or firecracker, goes off in the Senate, the air will clear. With an end to judicial filibusters, Judges William Pryor, Priscilla Owens, Richard Griffin, Henry Saad and Susan Neilson will all get a fair shot at confirmation. The business community, which has opposed to the nuclear option, also will enjoy the filibuster-free air. Senate Democrats, under the new rules, will find it more difficult to obstruct tort reform, energy reform and possibly Social Security and tax reform.

While there is a precedent for changing the rules in the Senate, there is none for the type of obstructionism we’re seeing from the modern Democratic Party. As Hugh Hewitt and Duane Patterson note, exactly one judicial nominee was filibustered on the Senate floor in the 20th century: the ethically challenged Judge Abe Fortas. Five years in, there have already been 10 such filibustered nominees in the 21st century.

It’s the height of hyprocisy for Messrs. Byrd, Reid and other Democrats to protest Senate rules inviolability, when it’s clear they’re only concered with their own political advantage.

It’s time for Senate Republicans to go nuclear. It’s time for the president and the GOP to enjoy the mandate they earned in the voting booth last fall.

Lawrence Kudlow is host of CNBC’s “Kudlow & Company” and is a nationally syndicated columnist.