It’s recently come to my attention that even some big name bloggers do not understand how committees work in Congress. Many people have suggested that a Democratic Senate, say a 51-49 Democratic Majority, would not have prevented Samuel Alito from getting on the court. As evidence in support of this, people have pointed to the successful nominations of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas under Democratic Senates, and the final tallies on the John Roberts and Alito confirmation votes.
Senate committee positions are allocated to each party in proportion to the party’s overall strength. Right now the committees have two more Republicans than they have Democrats. However, if the Democrats were to attain a majority in November, next year they would have the two extra seats.
In the recent Judiciary hearings for Samuel Alito the Democrats were united and all of them voted against sending Alito to the floor for a vote. So, if the Dems had been in the majority, and if their two additional Senators had held fast, Alito would have been killed in committee. But, even more importantly, the administration would not have nominated a candidate without having assurances beforehand that their nominee had the support of at least two Democrats.
When it comes to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and their hearings on the NSA wiretapping program the Washington Post reports:
The second White House flurry occurred last Thursday, as the Senate intelligence committee readied for a showdown over a motion by top Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV (W.Va.) to start a broad inquiry into the surveillance program. White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. — who had visited the Capitol two days earlier with Vice President Cheney to lobby Republicans on the program — spoke by phone with Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine), according to Senate sources briefed on the call.
Snowe earlier had expressed concerns about the program’s legality and civil liberties safeguards, but Card was adamant about restricting congressional oversight and control, said the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing office policies. Snowe seemed taken aback by Card’s intransigence, and the call amounted to “a net step backward” for the White House, said a source outside Snowe’s office.
Snowe contacted fellow committee Republican Chuck Hagel (Neb.), who also had voiced concerns about the program. They arranged a three-way phone conversation with Chairman Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).
Until then, Roberts apparently thought he had the votes to defeat Rockefeller’s motion in the committee, which Republicans control nine to seven, the sources said. But Snowe and Hagel told the chairman that if he called up the motion, they would support it, assuring its passage, the sources said.
When the closed meeting began, Roberts averted a vote on Rockefeller’s motion by arranging for a party-line vote to adjourn until March 7. The move infuriated Rockefeller, who told reporters, “The White House has applied heavy pressure in recent weeks to prevent the committee from doing its job.”
Thinking back on the smirking testimony of Alberto Gonzales during the Judiciary Committee’s farcical NSA hearing, it is easy to tell why he felt so comfortable. He knew that the real hearings, if any real hearings would be held at all, would not be in front of Arlen Specter’s committee but in front of Pat Roberts’s committee. And Pat Roberts has such a history of stonewalling that it recently led the New York Times to ask:
“Is there any aspect of President Bush’s miserable record on intelligence that Senator Pat Roberts, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is not willing to excuse and help to cover up?”
In this instance it is not clear that Roberts has the votes to cover up the NSA program. But, he definitely has the will…and he has until March 7th to figure something out.
It is obvious that Jay Rockefeller, if he were the Chairman of this committee, would have a rigorous set of hearings that would end the illegal domestic surveillance program, put it under the supervision of the FISA court, or lead directly to impeachment hearings.
On the Foreign Affairs committee, Biden would replace Dick Lugar and John Bolton never would have been nominated (to be recess appointed later).
On the Armed Forces committee, Carl Levin would replace John Warner and the Pentagon would have been reined in.
On Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, Teddy Kennedy would replace Michael Enzi of Wyoming with results that can only be imagined.
And when we go over to the House of Representatives, we can make some of the same assumptions. The Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee in none other than John Conyers. Conyers is the hardest hitting person in either house of Congress, and with the title of Chairman he would be going hogwild to expose and put an end to illegal domestic surveillance and a host of other excesses of this administration.
And Jane Harman is the Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee. She would assure that the NSA program complied with FISA.
I am not suggesting that, if put in the majority, the Democrats would suddenly begin standing up to this administration in all the ways that we would like. But, the administration has moved so close to the edge on a host of legal issues, that the loss of one house could have a snowballing effect.
The only thing standing between this administration being taken down for illegal domestic surveillance, doctored intelligence, and crimes against humanity is the ability and willingness of the Republican committee chairs to block oversight.
That is why I believe that in 2006 the American voter should put law enforcement ahead of policy. If candidates like Bob Casey make the difference between a 50-50 Senate and a 51-49 Senate and the mere fact of his election will flip all the committee chairs, then I am willing to put up with the fact that I hate his positions on women’s rights, on gay rights, and on stem-cell research.
I am upset about the way Reid, Rahm, and Schumer have handled themselves in their recruitment of candidates. They’ve shown a total disrespect for the state parties, and exhibited little character in the handling of Hackett. I want to find a way to create an alternate power center that can push back against these actions in the future and I am trying to help Chuck Pennacchio. But, for now, I’ll settle for a majority. And then, I hope, some frog-marching.
But Casey, if he were on Judiciary, would have been one of those Democratic votes that Bush would be counting on. And who knows how many times he’s going to cross the aisle and vote with his allies in the Religious Reich?
If Casey does get elected in November (I’m not in PA so I’m not voting against him, but I’m sure as hell not sending him any California green), all well and good — he’d better end up in some innocuous committee where he’ll have no say over my health decisions…and he sure as hell better not vote against conviction if the House does impeach this misAdministration…
I doubt that Casey would be offered a position on the Judicary committee. If you look at the Republican membership you’ll see that it is made up of some of the most strident pro-lifers: Brownback, Coburn, Sessions, Cornyn, Kyl, Hatch.
There is a reason for that.
And the same holds true for the Democrats in reverse.
How are individuals selected for the committees?
I understand how the committees work in relation to what you’ve written, but I haven’t read anything about who picks who for what.
Just curious.
In theory the whole Senate decides, but in reality the party leadership decides.
If Bob Casey is elected he will have his wish list of what committees he wants to serve on. Freshman have difficulty getting on high profile committees because seniority comes first in establishing membership.
If casey wanted to work on the Judicairy Committee he would be assigned to a subcommitte like Crime and Drugs or Intelectual Property. Then he would work his way up over time.
Sometimes the party gives a boost to someone. Obama got a plumb job on the Foreign Affairs committee. But the party would never give Casey a bump on Judiciary because no one wants him there.
And although you didn’t say it — if the Democrats on the Judiciary committe have the will right now to stick together and vote as a block when they are in the minority, think what they could do with 2 more votes.
Might not hurt to explain how committee assignments are made. I don’t know if Casey is likely to be put on the Judiciary committe or not if there was a majority.
How do we know they wouldn’t give those seats to “centrists”. How did Scalia and Thomas get passed?
to be my question…but I would’ve been far more wordy. 🙂
And another question: Reid is purportedly “pro-life”, though taking a low profile on the issue. With the newfound power of a Democratic majority and colleagues such as Casey in the Senate, what would prevent him from stepping farther to the Right on issues of women’s health?
Scalia got passed by someting like 98-2 and a big part of the reason why is the Mario Cuomo threatened any Democrat that wouldn’t vote for him. At the time, there had never been an Italian-American on the court and Cuomo was though to be the presumptive Dem nominee in 1992.
Clarence Thomas was barely put on the court and the fact that he was black may have given him the tiny extra edge he needed to make it.
Clarence Thomas would not make it today. The Dems would filibuster.
Isn’t it also likely that a plumb position like the judiciary committee would most likely go to someone whom the party felt it could control? Reid may be pro-life but he strikes me as someone who wants to enforce party discipline across the board.
BT:
Your point is pretty much what I had in mind when I posed an earlier question on Boston Joe’s diary.
It also goes beyond committee postings and into how leadership can determine how successfully you represent your state and how much exposure you have. There are many ways to exert influence on senators but many of them take a mastery that few recent majority leaders have had at hand. All of them have to work together in a way that is at least marginally acceptable to the base. Once folks have power, working together to retain it seems to take a higher priority. At that point, it becomes the responsibility of the base to let them know what they need to do to stay in power.
I was listening just today to an interview with Robert A. Caro on his book: Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson and was reminded forcefully how a majority is not magic, but it can be a magic wand – it just needs someone to wield it.
Would a Democratic majority be perfect? No. But as a liberal, I would rather be negotiating with moderate and conservative Democrats who have at least some of the same values I have, than with neocon republicans that have almost none.