Frist eyes compromise to forgo filibuster ban

WASHINGTON -- Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, yesterday brushed aside calls from conservatives to make good on his own suggestion and immediately ban filibusters of judicial nominees, saying he'll keep working with Democrats to avoid a bitter, politically damaging showdown.

''There are other avenues to be explored that I'm exploring aggressively," Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told reporters in a rare news conference held on the Senate floor.

Frist said he will soon float a compromise plan and promised to ''exhaust every opportunity" before seeking to change Senate rules to eliminate filibusters, the main weapon in the Democrats' political arsenal against the judicial appointees. He maintained his commitment to guaranteeing up-or-down votes on judges, however, meaning a confrontation remains highly likely.

Frist's announcement came amid intense lobbying from conservatives for him to strip the Democrats of the filibuster, a move that would clear the way for their majority in the Senate to confirm President Bush's judicial nominees to the federal bench before a vacancy arises on the Supreme Court.

But Democrats, outnumbered and objecting to the nominees' conservative credentials, have threatened to grind Senate business to a halt if Frist changes the rules and eliminates filibusters, a long-standing Senate tradition. Frist wants to avoid such a spectacle, particularly as he readies himself for a presidential run in 2008.

Democrats suggested privately that Frist is stalling for time. They say he is unsure about how best to proceed and isn't certain he has enough senators willing to vote to ban judicial filibusters. The issue has galvanized prominent conservatives of late, particularly after the Terri Schiavo case; many were angry with federal judges who rejected last-minute appeals by Schiavo's parents and refused to have her feeding tube reinserted, which would have preserved her life.

But Democrats are fighting back. Various left-leaning interest groups have taken out advertisements and made statements accusing Bush and Republican leaders of preparing to trample constitutional checks and balances to install ideologues on the federal bench.

Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts yesterday denounced Republicans' plans in an ad in USA Today. Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, plans a news conference on the steps of the Supreme Court today to highlight the stakes in the disagreement over judges.

''Of the almost 23 years I've been in Congress, this is the most important issue I've ever dealt with, because it deals with this little Constitution of ours," Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said yesterday. ''It's our constitutional framework, and something that has worked well for more than 200 years here in the Senate."

Reid blasted top Republicans for comments they've made in recent days regarding the judiciary. After Schiavo died of starvation, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay railed against what he called an ''arrogant, out-of-control, unaccountable judiciary." And on Monday, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, a leading proponent of ending judicial filibusters, suggested that there may be a connection between recent outbursts of deadly courthouse violence and judges ''making political decisions."

Under current Senate rules, as few as 41 of the 100 senators can maneuver to indefinitely delay a vote on a judicial nominee, effectively killing a presidential nomination. Democrats successfully used filibusters that way to stall 10 Bush nominees during the president's first term in office, and have threatened to do the same this year with similar nominees. Democrats control 44 of the 100 Senate seats, and the Senate's lone independent often stands with them.

But now, Republicans want to change the rules, forcing the Senate into approve-or-reject votes on all judicial nominations. Making that change would require a simple majority vote; in practice, at least 50 Republican senators would have to vote for it, since a tie vote would be broken in favor of the Republicans by Vice President Dick Cheney.

On Monday, a group of prominent conservatives held a Washington news conference urging Frist to outlaw filibusters now. The stakes and partisan conflict, they argue, will be far greater when a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court.

''You must not waver," they said in a letter sent to Frist, signed by some 150 influential Republicans -- including former presidential candidate Gary Bauer and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform.

Frist is also getting pressure from his own Senate colleagues to act fast. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, the Senate's third-ranking Republican, has been among the most vocal lawmakers calling for a change in rules.

''All I can say is that we are running out of options," Santorum said yesterday. ''Senator Frist has tried. He has been, I think, incredibly restrained . . . He wants to look himself in the mirror and say we tried everything we could to make sure that we preserve the precedent of the Senate."

Though Republican leaders insist that they have the votes to change the rules, several moderate Republicans are opposed to banning judicial filibusters, and any vote would probably be close. Massachusetts Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat, said Frist's leadership on the Schiavo case hurts his image as a surgeon who is above politics, and could also harm his ability to lead fellow Republicans into a nasty battle with Democrats.

''It's much more difficult for Frist to do it now than it was for him to do it before," Kennedy said Monday in a meeting with Globe reporters and editors. ''It's an arrogant grab for power."

Rick Klein can be reached at rklein@globe.com.