Advice to Senate Republicans: end filibuster now

I fully support the proposal to modify the Senate rules to prevent filibusters for judicial nominees. My advice to Senate Republicans is to get on with it and change the rules already. Do it first thing Monday morning.

It’s the good judicial nominees that the Democrats are blocking. The ones who believe in strict construction and in the original intent of the Constitution. The ones most deserving of serving as judges.

This issue is bigger than the nominees currently being filibustered. Between now and the end of Bush’s term, more judicial slots will be open for nomination, including Supreme Court positions. Are the Republicans going to let Democrats filibuster the nomination of a conservative Supreme Court Justice, one whose philosophy is similar to Justice Scalia?

It’s obvious that if the Democrats are going to use the filibuster against nominations to lower courts, they are certainly going to use it for a Supreme Court nomination. Therefore the Republicans should just get rid of the filibuster now instead of letting the issue drag on for the next three years. Republicans mustn't let Democrats cow Bush into nominating a Souter-like Justice to the Supreme Court.

The only reason for not getting rid of the filibuster is the theory that in the future a Republican minority in the Senate could use it against a Democratic president nominating liberal justices. I use the word “theory” because (1) who knows when that scenario is going to happen? and (2) if that scenario does happen the Democrats could just as easily change the rules as the Republicans can now.

I applaud Dick Cheney for supporting the elimination of the filibuster. (See today’s Washington Post.) Stephen at Hold the Mayo asks if this was too soon. “The question remaining is was the timing right for Cheney's statement.” No, it’s not too soon, it’s too late, the Republicans should have done this already.

The liberals are, of course, upset about this. For example, Blogenlust writes, “…the Republicans want to end the filibuster for no other reason than to grab more power[.]” It’s not about “grabbing” anything, it’s about getting good deserving nominees onto the courts, using the existing power granted by the Article II Section 2 of the Constitution. And we know very well that Democrats would do the same thing if they were in power and the Republicans were being as obstructionist as the Democrats currently are.

Comments

[Stephen Macklin]

I agree, it wis way too late in the big picture. This issue should have been dealt with already.

I was just postulating on what effect Cheney's remarks would have given the current state of the process. Does it help or hinder as things stand today?

If this helps spur some action on the part of the Senate leadership then I'll change the question to "What took you so long?"

[Half Sigma]

The way I see it the danger is that Cheney's statements cause the Democrats to compromise, and leave the filibuster still in the rules to threaten Bush's future Supreme Court nominee.

[mikeca]

“And we know very well that Democrats would do the same thing if they were in power and the Republicans were being as obstructionist as the Democrats currently are.”

How old are you? How many years have you been following politics?

Do you not remember that in some of the Clinton years the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans used their minority rights to block many judicial appointments. They did not do it with the filibuster; they did it using other rules. The rules used by Republicans sometimes allowed one or two Senators to block a nomination. The filibuster requires 41.

So why aren’t Democrats using the same rules that Republicans used against Clinton? Simple, the Republicans have already changed all those other rules, leaving the filibuster the only way to block a judicial nomination. The Democrats did not try to change any of these rules during the Clinton years.

This is all about abortion. Right to life groups view this as their golden opportunity. If Roe is overturned, then the real political battle over abortion and birth control will begin. If you think this is ugly, you haven’t seen anything yet.

[John]

Well you guys are in the minority, even among Republicans, at least according to this report.

Let us try to keep in mind the fact that the Democrats have helped to confirm over 200 judges thus far, far more than the Republican controlled Congresses of the Clinton years. We are talking about destroying the Senate rules for 10 people, or 5% of the total nominees.

The Democrats have been actually pretty good about letting Bush get his nominees to the bench, so if they have problems with 10 people, chances are they have a legitimate case.

[Half Sigma]

During the last six years of Clinton's presidency, the Republicans controlled the Senate so obviously they didn't need to filibuster anything.

I don't care about abortion. There are principles at stake more important than that.

[john]

honestly, what greater principles are at stake? I haven't been able to quite understand why this is so necessary for the Republicans. We're talking about 10 people here, and it's not like the Democrats have been obstructionists...quite the contrary.

What exactly are the greater principles at stake? And why are they greater than one of the most fundamental checks and balances in our government?

[Half Sigma]

The most basic principle of freedom from government tyranny, which is what the Constitution was originally supposed to do by limiting the powers of the federal government and including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.

The filibuster is not a "most fundamental check and balance," it's just a procedural rule that the Senate made up a long time ago that's not working so well in the present.

[John]

So you're suggesting that the Senate Democratic minority is on the verge of government tyranny because they're filibustering 10 of over 200 judicial nominations?

Is this the same Democratic Party that doesn't control the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch?

[Half Sigma]

Neither party controls the federal judiciary it's independent. However liberal ideology has controlled the courts since the 1937 decision of NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. I may add that liberal ideology also controls the news media which has been likened to a fourth branch of government.

At the same time, conservative ideology no longer controls the Republicans; these days they usually act like nothing more than religious Democrats.

[John]

Actually, the federal judiciary is overwhelmingly filled with Republican appointees.

Look it up. Or go here.

Of course the judiciary is independent, but if the political make up of the bench wasn't important, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, right?