2005 debate on nuclear option (United States Senate)

Last updated

The 2005 debate on the nuclear option was a political debate in the United States Senate regarding the possible use of the nuclear option to allow a simple majority to confirm judicial nominees. At the time, three-fifths of all senators duly chosen and sworn (then 60 votes) were required to end debate on nominations under Rule XXII of the Senate's standing rules.

Contents

The debate was sparked when Majority Leader Bill Frist (Republican of Tennessee) threatened its use to end Democratic-led filibusters of judicial nominees submitted by President George W. Bush. In response to this threat, Democrats threatened to shut down the Senate and prevent consideration of all routine and legislative Senate business. The ultimate confrontation was prevented by the Gang of 14, a group of seven Democratic and seven Republican Senators, all of whom agreed to oppose the nuclear option and oppose filibusters of judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances.

Judicial nominations leading up to 2005

Clinton appointments: 1993–2000

In 1995, Democrats held the White House. The New York Times editorialized, "The U.S. Senate likes to call itself the world's greatest deliberative body. In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This (is a) relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition … Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which Senators held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, dooming any measure that cannot command the 60 required votes." [1] There was no attempt to rewrite Senate rules for cloture at that time.

In 1996, President Bill Clinton nominated Judge Richard Paez to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Republicans held up Paez's nomination for more than four years, culminating in a failed March 8, 2000 filibuster. Only 14 Republicans approved it. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) was among those who voted to filibuster Paez. [2] [3] Paez was ultimately confirmed with a simple majority.

In addition to filibustering nominations, the Republican-controlled Senate refused to hold hearings for some 60 Clinton appointees, effectively blocking their nomination from coming to a vote on the Senate floor. [4]

Bush appointments: 2001–04

When George W. Bush took office in 2001 there remained dozens of federal court vacancies. Democratic Senators contended that these vacancies remained despite Clinton nominations to fill them because of obstruction by Republican Senators. Republicans held a majority in the Senate during the last six years of the Clinton administration and controlled who would be voted on. Democratic Senators asserted that, for the most part, Republicans did not raise objections to those judicial candidates, but simply refused to hold hearings on the nominations.

During his first term, President Bush nominated 46 people to federal appeals court seats, of which 36 were confirmed. Democrats blocked the confirmation of 10 nominees, on the grounds that they were too "out of the mainstream" for a lifetime appointment. At the beginning of his second term, Bush resubmitted seven of the 10 names. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowed to fight their confirmation. Senate Majority Leader Frist threatened to use the nuclear option to get them confirmed.

Coining the term, 2003

Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) suggested using a ruling of the chair to defeat a filibuster of judicial nominees in February 2003. The code word for the plan was "Hulk". Weeks later, Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) coined the term nuclear option in March 2003 because the maneuver was seen as a last resort with possibly major consequences for both sides. [5] [6] [7] The metaphor of a nuclear strike refers to the majority party unilaterally imposing a change to the filibuster rule, which might provoke retaliation by the minority party. [8] [9]

Lines are drawn

In the 2005 Senate, Republicans held 55 seats and the Democrats held 45 including Jim Jeffords, an independent from Vermont who caucused with the Democrats. Confirmation requires a plurality of votes, and the Republicans could easily confirm their nominees if brought to the floor. Earlier in 2005, Democrats had blocked the nomination of 10 of George W. Bush's nominees, saying they were too conservative and that Republicans had blocked many of their nominees back in the 1990s. Frist then threatened to use the nuclear option in response. Democrats warned that if Frist used the nuclear option they would shut down the Senate so that no business of any sort could be transacted.[ clarification needed ]

"Extremist" judges

In March 2005, President Bush announced that the administration would no longer seek the American Bar Association's (ABA) evaluations of federal judicial candidates, responding to Republican complaints of liberal bias and ending a tradition started by Eisenhower in 1953. [10] Despite this, the ABA's committee continues to provide the service. [11] Democratic senators all favor the ABA input. [10]

In April 2005, Senate Democrats were blocking the confirmation of seven of President Bush's nominees, calling them too extreme for a lifetime appointment. The most controversial nominees were Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen [12] (both later confirmed).

Nuclear option readied

Under pressure by the White House and social conservatives, Majority Leader Bill Frist signaled his readiness to pull the trigger on the 'nuclear option' to push through Bush's appellate court choices blocked by the Democrats' threat of filibuster. [13] [ dubious – discuss ]

Senate majority leader Bill Frist said that Owen ought to have the "courtesy of an up-or-down vote" [14] and was reportedly deciding whether to use the "nuclear option". [15] Senate minority leader Harry Reid wrote, in a letter to Frist, "But I want to be clear: we are prepared for a vote on the nuclear option." [14]

Republican pollster Ayres, McHenry and Associates found that 82 percent of registered voters believe that "well-qualified" nominees should receive an up or down vote (which would have included all of the candidates except Janice Rogers Brown). [16] An Associated Press-Ipsos poll released May 20, 2005, found 78 percent of Americans believe the Senate should take an "assertive role" examining judicial nominees rather than just give the president the benefit of the doubt. [17] Democratic pollster Westhill Partners found that only 30 percent of Americans approve changing "the rules to require only 51 votes to end a filibuster – thereby eliminating the current system of checks and balances on the majority party." [18]

Political motivations

Many Democrats viewed Frist's threats to push the nuclear option button to be more about his plan to run for president in 2008 than about the qualifications of the few nominees currently blocked in the Senate. [19] Quoting from Slate.com: [20]

Frist has made clear he will give up his Tennessee Senate seat in 2006, keeping his pledge to serve just two terms and leaving himself free to campaign for president. He has begun to court his party's conservative base.

Pat Robertson, founder of Christian Coalition of America, and several other prominent Christian conservatives endorsed the nuclear option as a necessary means of getting conservative judges onto the bench. In a May 1, 2005 interview on ABC's 'This Week with George Stephanopoulos', Pat Robertson said that Democratic judges are a greater threat to U.S. unity and stability than Al Qaeda, Nazi Germany or Civil War. [21] On Sunday, April 25, 2005, Family Research Council sponsored "Justice Sunday" featuring Bill Frist – a 90-minute simulcast over Christian radio and television networks enthusiastically supporting the nuclear option. [22] [23] In January 2005, Dr. James C. Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, threatened six Democratic senators if they block conservative nominees. [24] On May 24, 2005, after the compromise negotiated between 14 Senators was announced (the Gang of 14), Dobson said the agreement "represents a complete bailout and a betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats." [25]

One of the arguments made by Senate Republicans opposed to the nuclear option was that Democrats might gain a Senate majority, or the Presidency, again. Thus the GOP might need the filibuster to block the appointment of what Republicans might consider to be an unacceptable nominee by the Democratic president.

Protests against the nuclear option took place on numerous college campuses; on the Princeton University campus, outside the Frist Campus Center (named for the senator's family) students staged a protest against the nuclear option by simulating a filibuster for two weeks non-stop, beginning on April 26, 2005.[ citation needed ]

Democratic opposition

Obstruction or a "power grab"

In response to claims of "Senate obstructionism," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev) pointed out that only 10 of 214 nominations by President Bush have been turned down.[ citation needed ] Former President Bill Clinton called Republican efforts to paint Democrats as obstructionist "a hoax" stating "The Republicans wouldn't even give a vote to 40 of my Court of Appeals judges... never mind all the others that they wouldn't have voted." One of Democrats' biggest complaints had been that more than 60 of President Clinton's nominees were bottled up in committee, leaving positions available for Bush to fill. [26] (Republicans were the majority in the Senate for six of Clinton's eight years as President—1995–2001.) On April 27, 2005, Former Vice President Al Gore said, "Their grand design is an all-powerful executive using a weakened legislature to fashion a compliant judiciary in its own image. ... What is involved here is a power grab." [27]

Democratic proposal

On May 9, 2005, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid offered the Democrats' support for one of President Bush's judicial nominees, former Senate lawyer Thomas B. Griffith. [28] Democrats cited this offer as a goodwill gesture to show that they are willing to cooperate with Republicans and confirm "acceptable" nominees. Reid stated that Democrats "will only block unacceptable nominees" (such as Brown and Owen), but would confirm Griffith, saying "Let's take a step away from the precipice. Let's try cooperation, rather than confrontation."

Republican spokesman Bob Stevenson rejected the offer, saying, "Why stop at one? We should take them all up." Republicans contended that the Democrats' offer was empty, since the Democrats would have retained the discretion to block any of President Bush's future nominees that they deemed "extremist," even when those nominees enjoyed the support of all Republican Senators. Thus, that Reid's offer did not resolve the problems that led to consideration of the nuclear option in the first place. Republicans also noted that the Democrats' judicial filibusters had already killed three of President Bush's Court of Appeals nominations (Miguel Estrada, Charles Pickering, and Carolyn Kuhl), as those judges withdrew their nominations rather than continue to fight the filibuster. [29]

Republican counter-proposal

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn) floated a Republican counter-offer. In exchange for ending the filibuster against judicial nominees, the Republicans offered to end the practice of bottling up appellate-court nominees in committee (a nod to President Clinton's nominees who were denied floor votes), and to guarantee up to 100 hours of debate on each nomination. Minority Leader Reid rejected that offer calling it, "a big wet kiss to the far right." [29]

Critical mass

On Friday, May 20, 2005, a cloture vote for the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown was rescheduled for Tuesday, May 24. The failure of this cloture vote would be the beginning of the nuclear option, immediately followed by the asking for the ruling of the chair on the constitutionality of the filibuster. On May 23, Majority Leader Frist called for a vote on Priscilla Owen. This threatened to trigger the nuclear option.

Gang of 14

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) and Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) reached out to a number of colleagues on both sides to compromise by winning confirmation of some of the disputed nominees (Janice Rogers Brown, William Pryor, and Priscilla Owen) while preserving the judicial filibuster on William Myers and Henry Saad. [30] Their efforts succeeded on the evening of May 23, 2005, one day before the cloture vote. They announced an agreement by seven Republican and seven Democratic Senators to avert a vote on the nuclear option while preserving the filibuster for "extraordinary circumstances." [31] The block of senators who agreed to the compromise included Republicans John McCain, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, John Warner of Virginia, Olympia Snowe of Maine, Susan Collins of Maine, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island; and Democrats Nelson, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, and Ken Salazar of Colorado. This group was quickly dubbed "the Gang of 14" in various blogs and news outlets. McCain, Chafee, Collins, and Snowe were already on record as opposing the nuclear option, leaving the Democrats two votes short of defeating an attempt to trigger it (they would have needed 51 votes to override Vice President Dick Cheney's tie-breaking vote).

The bipartisan group was large enough to deny Frist the 50 votes he needed to trigger the nuclear option, and also large enough to reach cloture on a Democratic filibuster. It states, in part:

...we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

Democrats in the Gang agreed not to filibuster the judges listed in the agreement (save in "extraordinary" circumstances) and Republicans in the Gang agreed not to vote for the nuclear option. The definition of what constituted an "extraordinary" circumstance was left up to the individual senator. For example, Graham and DeWine let it be known that they did not consider nominations to the Supreme Court to fit the definition.

Frist reluctantly approved the compromise. Several of the blocked nominees were brought to the floor, voted upon and approved as specified in the agreement, and others were dropped and did not come up for a vote, as implied by the agreement. As a result of this agreement, Owen was confirmed 55–43, Brown was confirmed 56–43, and Pryor was confirmed 53–45.

Later developments

The agreement held force until 2013, when the Senate Democratic majority invoked the nuclear option for all nominations except Supreme Court nominations. In 2017, the Senate Republican majority eliminated the Supreme Court exception in order to defeat a filibuster on the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Trent Lott</span> American politician (born 1941)

Chester Trent Lott Sr. is an American lobbyist, lawyer, author, and politician who represented Mississippi in the United States House of Representatives from 1973 to 1989 and in the United States Senate from 1989 to 2007. Lott served in numerous leadership positions in both chambers of Congress as one of the first of a wave of Republicans winning seats in Southern states that had been solidly Democratic. Later in his career, he served twice as Senate Majority Leader, and also, alternately, Senate Minority Leader. In 2003, he stepped down from the position after controversy due to his praising of Senator Strom Thurmond's 1948 segregationist Dixiecrat presidential bid.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Olympia Snowe</span> American politician (born 1947)

Olympia Jean Snowe is an American businesswoman and politician who was a United States Senator from Maine from 1995 to 2013. Snowe, a member of the Republican Party, became known for her ability to influence the outcome of close votes, including whether to end filibusters. In 2006, she was named one of America's Best Senators by Time magazine. Throughout her Senate career, she was considered one of the most moderate members of the chamber.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">George W. Bush Supreme Court candidates</span>

Speculation abounded over potential nominations to the Supreme Court of the United States by President George W. Bush since before his presidency.

Miguel Angel Estrada Castañeda is a Honduran-American attorney who became embroiled in controversy following his 2001 nomination by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Senate Democrats, unable to block his nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the U.S. Senate in 2002, used a filibuster for the first time to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote by the full Senate.

In the United States Senate, the nuclear option is a parliamentary procedure that allows the Senate to override a standing rule by a simple majority, avoiding the two-thirds supermajority normally required to invoke cloture on a measure amending the Standing Rules. The term "nuclear option" is an analogy to nuclear weapons being the most extreme option in warfare.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Priscilla Richman</span> American judge (born 1954)

Priscilla Richman is an American lawyer and jurist serving as the chief United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. She was previously a justice of the Supreme Court of Texas from 1995 to 2005.

Henry William Saad is a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals and a former nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Gang of 14 was a bipartisan group of Senators in the 109th United States Congress who successfully, at the time, negotiated a compromise in the spring of 2005 to avoid the deployment of the so-called "nuclear option" by Senate Republican Majority over an organized use of the filibuster by Senate Democrats.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Samuel Alito Supreme Court nomination</span> United States Supreme Court nomination

On October 31, 2005, President George W. Bush nominated Samuel Alito for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Alito's nomination was confirmed by a 58–42 vote of the United States Senate on January 31, 2006.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Richard Allen Griffin</span> American judge (born 1952)

Richard Allen Griffin is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Previously, he was a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">David McKeague</span> American judge (born 1946)

David William McKeague is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Terrence Boyle</span> American judge (born 1945)

Terrence William Boyle is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. He was chief judge of that court from 1997 to 2004. He served a second term as chief judge from 2018 to 2021. From 1991 to 1993 and again from 2001 to 2007, he was a nominee to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. His federal appellate nomination from 2001 to 2007 is the longest in history not to be acted upon by the United States Senate.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Susan Bieke Neilson</span> American judge (1956–2006)

Susan Bieke Neilson was a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and before that, a state trial judge in Michigan.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Helene White</span> American judge (born 1954)

Helene N. White is a senior United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Previously, she was a judge on the Michigan Court of Appeals.

During President George W. Bush's two term tenure in office, a few of his nominations for federal judgeships were blocked by the Senate Democrats either directly in the Senate Judiciary Committee or on the full Senate floor in various procedural moves, including the first use of a filibuster to block a Federal Appeals Court nominee. Republicans labeled it an unwarranted obstruction of professionally qualified judicial nominees.

Brian Theadore Stewart is a senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Utah.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patricia Millett</span> American federal judge (born 1963)

Patricia Ann Millett is an American lawyer and jurist serving since 2013 as a U.S. circuit judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. She formerly headed the Supreme Court practice at the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. Millett also was a longtime former assistant to the United States Solicitor General and served as an occasional blogger for SCOTUSblog. At the time of her confirmation to the D.C. Circuit, she had argued 32 cases before the United States Supreme Court—once the record for a female lawyer. In February 2016, The New York Times identified her as a potential nominee to replace Justice Antonin Scalia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Filibuster in the United States Senate</span> Legislative tactic

A filibuster is a tactic used in the United States Senate to delay or block a vote on a measure by preventing debate on it from ending. The Senate's rules place few restrictions on debate; in general, if no other senator is speaking, a senator who seeks recognition is entitled to speak for as long as they wish. Only when debate concludes can the measure be put to a vote.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court nomination</span> United States Supreme Court nomination

On January 31, 2017, soon after taking office, President Donald Trump, a Republican, nominated Neil Gorsuch for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States to succeed Antonin Scalia, who had died almost one year earlier. Then-president Barack Obama, a Democrat, nominated Merrick Garland to succeed Scalia on March 16, 2016, but the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate did not vote on the nomination. Majority leader Mitch McConnell declared that as the presidential election cycle had already commenced, it made the appointment of the next justice a political issue to be decided by voters. The Senate Judiciary Committee refused to consider the Garland nomination, thus keeping the vacancy open through the end of Obama's presidency on January 20, 2017.

Manuel A. Miranda is an American attorney, diplomat, journalist, and political advocate. He served as a diplomat at the Embassy of the United States, Baghdad as the first Director of the Office of Legislative Statecraft. Miranda also led U.S. Senate efforts to seat the judicial nominees of President George W. Bush as Republican Senior Nominations Counsel on the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary and Judicial Affairs Counsel to then-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist.

References

  1. ↑ "Time to Retire the Filibuster". The New York Times. 1995-01-01.
  2. ↑ Judd Legum (2005-01-04). "Frist's Hypocritical and Dishonest Attack on Democracy". Archived from the original on 2005-09-03.
  3. ↑ Herman Schwartz (March 25, 2005). "Senate Rules Meltdown". CBS News.
  4. ↑ Brian Naylor; Ron Elving (2005-04-05). Primer: Judicial Nominees and the Senate Filibuster. NPR.
  5. ↑ VandeHei, Jim (2005-05-29). "From Senator's 2003 Outburst, GOP hatched 'nuclear option'". Washington Post.
  6. ↑ Safire, William (2005-03-20). "Nuclear Options". New York Times. In March 2003, the Mississippi Republican Trent Lott was troubled by the Democrats' use of the threat of a filibuster, or Senate-stopping 'extended debate,' which prevented a vote on some of President Bush's judicial nominees. Charles Hurt of The Washington Times wrote that Lott told him of a plan that might allow Republicans to confirm a judge with a simple 51-vote majority – rather than the 60 votes needed under the present rules to 'break' a filibuster. Lott 'declined to elaborate, warning that his idea is "nuclear."' This led Michael Crowley of The New Republic to ask rhetorically: 'What might Lott's 'nuclear' option be?'
  7. ↑ Radelat, Ana (2003-05-23). "Lott aims to change filibuster rules: Senator says stalling of Pickering's nomination, others "cannot stand"". The Clarion-Ledger. Retrieved 2018-01-21.[ dead link ]
  8. ↑ Jeffrey Toobin (2005-03-07). "Blowing Up the Senate: Will Bush's judicial nominees win with the "nuclear option"?". The New Yorker. Retrieved 2012-11-13.
  9. ↑ Alexander Bolton (2012-11-13). "Dems short on votes for filibuster reform". The Hill. Retrieved 2012-11-14. Supporters call it the constitutional option, but it is well-known as the "nuclear" option for the meltdown in partisan relations that it could affect.
  10. 1 2 "ABA will continue to evaluate federal judicial nominees". Archived from the original on September 3, 2005.
  11. ↑ "Ratings of Article III Judicial Nominees" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 3, 2005.
  12. ↑ Babington, Charles; Balz, Dan (April 22, 2005). "Senate GOP Sets Up Filibuster Showdown". The Washington Post. Retrieved May 20, 2010.
  13. ↑ "As Frist and the GOP Push for 'Nuclear Option' to Prevent Democrats From Filibustering Bush's Controversial Judicial Nominees, U.S. Politics Today Offers Extended Filibuster Coverage". Archived from the original on November 4, 2005.
  14. 1 2 Carl Hulse (2005-05-11). "Democrats Reject a Compromise on Judicial Nominees". New York Times. Retrieved 2012-11-13.
  15. ↑ Gail Russell Chaddock (2005-05-11). "Pivotal days for Frist and the GOP". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 2012-11-13.
  16. ↑ "Republicans Should Welcome Judicial Confirmation Battles" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 9, 2005.
  17. ↑ Lester, Will (May 20, 2005). "Poll: Most Want Assertive Senate on Judges". Archived from the original on 2005-05-23.
  18. ↑ Cillizza, Chris (April 7, 2005). "DNC Poll: Americans Down on 'Nuke Option'". Archived from the original on 2014-04-27.
  19. ↑ Cassata, Donna (May 19, 2005). "Analysis: Frist's Hardball May Backfire". Archived from the original on 2005-05-21.
  20. ↑ Harding, James (March 10, 2005). "Bill Frist: It's hard to run the Senate while you're running for president". Slate.com. Archived from the original on 2012-01-19.
  21. ↑ Rose, Derek (May 2, 2005). "Robertson: Judges Worse than Al Qaeda". Daily News. New York. Archived from the original on 2014-04-27.
  22. ↑ Hamburger, Tom (April 24, 2005). "Frist Initiative Creates Rift in GOP Base". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved 2009-06-29.
  23. ↑ Hudson, Audrey (April 24, 2005). "GOP has votes for 'nuclear option,' McConnell says". Washington Times. Archived from the original on 2014-04-27.
  24. ↑ Kirkpatrick, David D. (January 1, 2005). "Evangelical Leader Threatens to Use His Political Muscle Against Some Democrats". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2014-04-27. Retrieved 2014-04-27.
  25. ↑ Abrams, Jim (May 24, 2005). "Senators Avoid Battle Over Filibusters". Archived from the original on 2005-05-26.
  26. ↑ "President Clinton rebuked Couric for repeating Republican claim of Democratic "obstructionism" of judicial nominees". April 12, 2005. Archived from the original on 2014-04-27. Retrieved 2018-01-21.
  27. ↑ Harris, John (April 28, 2005). "Gore Cautions on Ending Filibusters". The Washington Post. Washington, D.C. p. A04.
  28. ↑ Holland, Jesse J. (May 9, 2005). "Reid Offers Olive Branch on Bush Nominee". Archived from the original on 2005-05-11.
  29. 1 2 York, Byron (May 10, 2005). "The Answer Is in the Works". National Review Online. Archived from the original on 27 May 2005.
  30. ↑ Ferraro, Thomas (May 15, 2005). "Deal sought in showdown over Bush's judges". Archived from the original on 2005-05-17.
  31. ↑ "Memorandum of Understanding on Judicial Nominations" (PDF). United States Senate. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2005-09-15.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.