GOP Turns Up Heat On Judges

President Bush and Senate Republicans renewed their pressure on Democrats to stop blocking some of his judicial nominees on Monday, four years to the day that the White House unveiled its first judicial picks.

"Each deserved a simple up-or-down vote by the entire Senate," Mr. Bush said in a statement, pointing out that two of his first nominees from 2001 — Texas judge Priscilla Owen and North Carolina judge Terrence Boyle — have yet to be approved by the Senate.

Owen is one of seven Bush nominees being filibustered by Democrats, while Boyle was blocked in committee by objections from former Democratic Sen. John Edwards in retaliation for similar actions by former GOP Sen. Jesse Helms.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., is considering an effort to ban judicial filibusters to stop Democrats from blocking those judges and a Supreme Court nomination if a vacancy comes open during the Bush presidency.

"All judicial nominees deserve an up-or-down vote. It's a matter of fairness," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said at a news conference at the Justice Department. Gonzales was involved with judicial nominations in his job as White House counsel during Mr. Bush's first term.

Democrats have blocked 10 of Mr. Bush's appellate court choices through filibuster threats, which means those nominees would have to get 60 votes in the 100-member Senate instead of a simple majority. Democrats have threatened to block again the seven whom Mr. Bush renominated this year, as well as future ones they consider outside the mainstream of legal thinking.

Republicans in turn have threatened to use their majority later this month to exercise the so-called "nuclear option," changing senatorial rules to require a simple majority vote for confirmation.

Frist and Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid have rejected compromise offers from their counterparts, with Frist insisting on confirmation votes on all judicial nominees and Reid insisting on Democrats keeping their ability to block Bush nominees.

Other senators have been offering compromise solutions, such as Republicans promising not to ban judicial filibusters if Democrats promise not to filibuster Supreme Court nominees. But lawmakers say they have yet to find a deal acceptable to enough senators on either side.

Some senators think there's still time to negotiate an agreement.

"My goodness, you've got 100 United States senators. Some of us might be moderately intelligent enough to figure this out," said Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. "We need to work through this."

Hagel remains publicly undecided about whether to endorse the GOP threat to ban judicial filibusters. But he noted Sunday that private talks were continuing between Frist and Reid in an effort to work out a compromise.

"We would, I think, debase our system and fail our country if we don't do this," Hagel told ABC's "This Week."

"But you can't give up a minority rights tool in the interest of the country, like the filibuster," he said.

Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said, "It's that kind of statement that gives us hope."

Many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon, but conservative icon and former federal judge Ken Starr says it has gotten out of control, reports CBS News correspondent Gloria Borger.

"The confirmation process has not only become ugly and has become a shouting match," he said. "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."

Starr, who prosecuted the Monica Lewinsky case against President Clinton, said the Republican plan to end the filibuster may be unwise.

"It may prove to have the kind of long term boomerang effect damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful senators may come to regret," he said.