Good riddance to it, too.
The Constitution doesn’t requires more than a majority vote on presidential appointments to the judiciary, and it twists the meaning of the Constitution to use Senate debate rules to up that to a 60-vote supermajority.
In fact, I’m rethinking the existence of the filibuster. Certainly the way it’s come to be used, a case can be made that it is a contra-Constitutional rule that we ought to simply get rid of.
But that’s a question for another day. For now,
GET THE STORY ON ENDING JUDICIAL FILIBUSTERS.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Filibusters are good because they protect minority rights and measure the intensity (not just the popular opinion) of a debate. Conservatives, who favor slowing down government, should treasure this blocking mechanism.
Also, the requirement that judicial nominees receive Senate consent does not require the Senate to vote at all.
That’s what George Will said. He’s right, because the Founding Fathers knew what they were doing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6596229/site/newsweek
Interesting comment Sandra on conservatives slowing things down. I would have agreed with that 10 years ago. However, it appears to me it’s now the liberal side that wants to slow things down.
I wish the Republicans would force a real filibuster. If the Democrats actually had to conduct a real filibuster, now that they have been convincingly defeated, it would look like real sour grapes on their part. The Republicans could let it run for a couple of weeks, win the battle of public opinion, and then they’d have all the justification they need to go to the “nuclear” (or as the Journal puts it, the “majority-vote advice-and-consent”) option.
Besides embarrassing the Dems, it would serve a useful purpose because the inevitable press a filibuster would attract would serve to inform the public about the importance of the judge selection process.
I don’t think the Dems would actually go through with it at this point. It’s time to call their bluff.
And besides, I’d like to see Ted Kennedy sweat a little! 😛
A case can be made for the non-democratic traditions of the Senate (remember Jefferson’s illustration of pouring hot coffee into the Senatorial saucer to cool it).
The best example that I can think of is the Clinton impeachment. Yes, Clinton was guilty of perjury, and the popular sentiment would have been to remove him from office. But would it have been good for the country to remove him? In retrospect, the Senate (somewhat insulated from popular opinion) probably did the right thing in keeping Clinton in office.
“Interesting comment Sandra on conservatives slowing things down. I would have agreed with that 10 years ago. However, it appears to me it’s now the liberal side that wants to slow things down.”
Yes, it is the Liberal Democrats who are now trying to slow things down. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
While I would like to see pro-life judges on the bench, I would like to retain the filibuster as a viable tool for the Republicans as well as Democrats when it comes to judicial appointees. Four years from now when we could have a President Hillary and Democratic majority in the Senate wouldn’t you like the Republicans to have the filibuster as a tool to block offensive appointees and offensive legistation. The problem is not that the Democrats are utilizing the filibuster to block Bush’s judicial appointments, but that Republicans have not used them to their full effectiveness in the past.
The filibuster has already been watered down over the years, i.e., by decreasing the number of votes for closure (no more Mr. Smith’s possible). The filibuster is an essential tool in keeping the Senate as a slower moving and more deliberative body than the House. I would hate to have this function of the Senate gutted and see the Senate to travel down the path of becoming a mere debating society such as the Roman Senate after the Gracci Brothers or the British House of Lords.
Is there any good reason to believe that the Dems won’t go “nuclear” in the future just because the Republicans won’t do it now?
That seems like folly to me.
There is one thing that I am certain of is that they definitely will use the nuclear option if the Republicans do so now.
They haven’thad to go nuclear in the past since in most cases they have been good little door mats for Democratic presidents. (Showing their true committment to social conservative causes.)
To paraphrase an old saying “Hard cases make bad Senate rules.”
Of course I want to see Conservative, Pro-life judges confirmed. But to change senate rules that the Founders wisely established as a check on popular tyranny? No. Gotta look at the bigger picture.
Uh. The rule that allows filibuster isn’t itself in the Constitution – it’s just a Senate rule. That said, I’m neither strongly for or strongly against keeping the rule and allowing continued filibusters of judicial nominations. However, I think BillyHW is right on target in his first comment: Before we worry about employing the “nuclear option” or the like, we should force the Dems to mount a real filibuster, and see how long that lasts!