Sen. Schumer makes up stuff

The other day, Sen. Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York, spoke on the Senate floor about the filibuster and the balance of power in the Senate. Here's a portion of his remarks:

The Senate is not a majoritarian body. My good friend from Utah got up and spoke. I think he represents about 2 million people in Utah. I represent 19 million in New York State. We have the same vote. You could have 51 votes for a judge on this floor that represents 21 percent of the American people. So the bottom line is very simple. This has not always been a 50.1 to 49.9 body. It has been a body that has had to work, by its rules, and by the Founding Fathers' intent, that even when you are in the majority, you have to reach out and meet, not all, not most, but some of the concerns of the minority.

This is a red herring. Sen. Schumer says the founding fathers established the Senate with all states having an equal vote regardless of population, unlike the House of Representatives with its population-based membership numbers. Somehow, he thinks he's making an argument for the constitutionality of the filibuster, for the rights of a minority to trump the will of the majority, by noting the Senate's equal representation setup.

This is ludicrous. Despite the fact that the Senate provides equal representation, it's still a majoritarian body. If 51 Senators vote in favor of something (or someone), they don't hold the vote count while they add up the population of the states represented by those 51 senators to ensure it's a majority of citizens. Sen. Schumer is refuting his own argument by noting that "we have the same vote."

But his comments got me to thinking: what's the population of states that voted for Bush vs. those that voted for Kerry? If Schumer thinks population should trump majority rule in the Senate, then surely he would follow whichever party won the states with the highest population of citizens in the 2004 election. Here it is:

BLUE STATE POPULATION: 136,714,060
RED STATE POPULATION: 144,135,787

(These accumulations are based on the population of states each presidential candidate won in 2004, but population numbers are from the 2000 census.)

Now, maybe he was talking about the population of voters represented in the Senate, which would give the Democrats an edge (117.6 million vs. 112.8 million, with another 50.3 million split because of states that have one Senator from each party). But again, this is irrelevant. Until such time as the Constitution is changed to factor in population in Senate voting or makeup, the Senate (as Schumer noted) offers one vote per member. Fifty-one votes still constitutes a majority, and the Constitution says nothing about the necessity of a super-majority to approve a judicial nomination.

One other thing — I keep hearing arguments that the Republicans blocked plenty of Clinton nominees in committee, but there's a point I never hear in response. During the first two years of Clinton's term, the Democrats held a 57-43 advantage in the Senate. During that time, 19 of Clinton's 22 Circuit Court nominees were confirmed, and none were filibustered by the Republican minority.

Starting in 1994, the Republicans took control of the Senate; over the next six years, the Republican majority confirmed 46 of Clinton's 84 nominees, or almost 55 percent. In comparison, 53 percent of Bush 43's Circuit Court nominees have been confirmed.

The whole point of this is that Clinton had to work with a Republican Senate to get his nominations through committee and out to a floor vote. Let me repeat that: the Republicans controlled the Senate, as well as the judiciary committee, so they could offer their Advice & Consent role as the controlling party. Like it or not, if they didn't approve of a nominee, the voters had given them a majority so they could refuse those nominees (either in committee or on the floor).

Bush 43 is asking for the same Advice & Consent, but he's had a Republican Senate since 2002. The Democrats refuse to offer Advice & Consent because they're suddenly in the minority, so they undertake the filibuster to take away the majority rights they enjoyed for so many years prior to 1994. (Thanks to dalythoughts.com for the info.)

Guess what? Elections matter.

The 1992 election mattered because it gave the Democrats the presidency & Senate, and they took advantage of that power to approve 86 percent of Clinton's Circuit Court nominees.

The 1994 election mattered because the Democrats lost control of the Senate, and a Democratic president had to work with a Republican senate.

The 2000 election mattered because the parties traded sides, so a Republican president had to work with a Democratic senate.

And the 2002 election mattered because it gave the Republicans both the presidency & Senate (and theoretically, the power that goes with it). But the Democrats don't want to recognize that power, or the voice of the American voter, so they take their toys and go home.

It's time for that to stop. End the judicial filibuster.