Still more of the right thing

Here's another example of how Congress can do the right thing, and this time Senate Democrats are the culprits.

I don't know much about the history and constitutionality of filibustering. I suppose the tactic can be put to honorable use—you're not the only one who saw "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"—but it's always struck me as a bit of a shady practice in most situations.

I mean, we live in something resembling democracy after all. Someone has an idea. We discuss it. We vote on it. Thumbs up; thumbs down. Majority rule and all that. The filibuster just runs right against that grain. But okay, whatever. I can live with a filibuster.

But not when it comes to confirming judges. The President has been doing his job, appointing judges to fill vacancies. The Senate's job is to "advise and consent" on these appointments, but they haven't been able to do their job because the Democrats have been filibustering the process.

This is wrong. It leaves judicial positions unfilled. It costs a lot of time and money. And it keeps a lot of fine people and their families hanging in limbo for months or years while they await confirmation. A nominee should be given a timely hearing and a vote. Senate Democrats have been using the filibuster to prevent this, and there is nothing to it except cheap, partisan politics.

The solution is to put a time limit on the confirmation process. When Congress sends a bill to the President's desk, he has ten days to act—to either sign or veto it. If he fails to act within ten days, the bill automatically becomes law. Judicial (and other) confirmations should be handled the same way. Once nominated, the Senate should be given a reasonable amount of time to act, after which the nominee is deemed confirmed.

This would in no way interfere with the Senate's duty to advise and consent. It would simply force them to actually perform that duty, and in a timely manner, instead of constipating the entire process for a political agenda that has nothing to do with a nominees qualifications.

Update: Carnival of Solutions (via Dean's World) addresses this issue. The focus there is on how to make the process more bipartisan. I'm really not interested in that. I just want nominees to get a thumbs up or down in a reasonable amount of time.

Any effort to create a commission or anything like that is going to complicate what should be a simple process. The Senate's role in this should be minimal, and they've already overstepped the bounds of advice and consent.

At some point, we have to trust that the Amercian people made decent choices when they elected their public officials. And we have to trust that those elected officials will be responsible enough to reject unqualified nominees. If the Senate can do that much, and do it in a timely manner, the problem is solved as far as I'm concerned. If the nominees act up after they are confirmed, well, that's what impeachment is for.