click to enlarge
They've come to their senses--mostly the Republicans, but also the Democrats and their need to concede some ground. And they did. I've been wondering what would happen if Republicans altered the cloture rule (limiting the abilty to filibuster). Would it lead to a revolt against the GOP?...landslide losses? The destruction of the Republican party? The destruction of the Democratic party (like we weren't making pretty good progress self-destructing on our own)?
It looks like two old warhorses, Senators Byrd and Warner put this deal together.
The Republicans know their turn in the cold is coming. They may be mean, but they're not stupid. I want them to have the filibuster; it's so sacred we even let Republicans use it!
Without this tool, The Senate would be no different than the factionalized, reactionary, pork-doling House of Representatives, running for office every eighteen months and raising money every day.
So the Senate remains the coolest political institutional around (not discounting many lapses and moments of insanity, particularly with the Republicans majority).
Here is part of a wire service article from today. Click on the title of this article to link to the full news story.
WASHINGTON (AP) - In a dramatic reach across party lines, Senate centrists sealed a compromise Monday night that cleared the way for confirmation of many of President Bush's stalled judicial nominees, left others in limbo and preserved venerable filibuster rules. "We have reached an agreement to try to avert a crisis in the United States Senate and pull the institution back from a precipice," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., adding the deal was based on "trust, respect and mutual desire to .... protect the rights of the minority.---o0o---
"We have lifted ourselves above politics," agreed Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W. Va., "And we have signed this document....in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of debate and freedom to dissent in the United States Senate.
Under the terms, Democrats agreed to allow final confirmation votes for Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William Pryor, appeals court nominees they have long blocked. There is "no commitment to vote for or against" the filibuster against two other conservatives named to the appeals court, Henry Saad and William Myers.
2 comments:
I just can’t help but comment... :)
Don't get too excited - I don't believe this issue will be dead until after every one of President Bush's Supreme Court nominees gets a vote. Certainly Sen. Frist is holding on tight to that option, no matter what the small group of politically motivated "centrists" have agreed to.
In reality, the Democrats have very little legitimate ground on which to stand on this issue. Contrary to the aggressive spin, there is no Constitutional provision for filibuster, but rather a well-used and well-documented power given to the Senate to adjust their own rules (in this case to limit debate). This has been done twice before (2/3 majority and then down to a 3/5 majority) and in both cases was done specifically to remedy misuse of minority power. I cannot find support for the idea of filibuster power in the Federalist Papers, but rather find quite a contrary position as related to judicial appointments:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity." – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 76 "The Appointing Power of the President"
Furthermore, the Advice and Consent clause in the Constitution (Section 2, Clause 2) specifically requires a 2/3 majority for Treaties, but clearly does not make the same requirement for other appointments. If it was the intent of the Authors of the Constitution to allow a minority to block the approval of Presidential appointments, they had every opportunity to do that right there; but they did not.
So the idea that the Senate, by adjusting its own rules limiting debate on judicial nominations, is somehow violating the intent of the Constitution or the Founders is a manufactured argument.
The current GOP leadership is not trying to do away with the filibuster (as has been frequently reported, and as you subtly allege), but rather eliminate its use for judicial nominations, for which it was never intended. The fact is that prior to the abuse of the rule by the current minority to block the vote of nominees, there have only been three attempted filibusters against a judicial nominee in the history of the Senate: one against promoting Abe Fortas to be chief justice in 1968 (which is dissimilar for many reasons), and two attempted by GOP Senators against Clinton nominees in 2000 -- both of which were voted against 3-1 by GOP Senators and were defeated.
So, the Senate is doing what it always does (and what I'm glad it does): looking for ways to remedy the abuse of power by the minority. The filibuster may make the Senate unique and set it apart from the House, but it somewhat amusing to see the Democrats defending that same power that was used several times under heavy criticism to delay Civil Rights legislation in the 50s and 60s. From the King Democrat himself:
"Again and again in recent years, the filibuster has been the shame of the Senate and the last resort of special-interest groups. Too often, it has enabled a small minority of the Senate to prevent a strong majority from working its will and serving the public interest." – Ted Kennedy in 1975, right after the rules were changed to allow 60 senators to invoke cloture.
My how the tune seems to change with the fortunes of the party...
With regard to the misuse of the filibuster to block judicial nomination votes, Charles Krauthammer from the Washington Post, suggested:
"Two hundred years of tradition has been radically and unilaterally changed by the minority. Why? The reason is obvious. Democrats have not had a very good run recently in the popularly elected branches. Since choosing the wrong side of the culture wars of the 1960s, they have won only three of the past 10 presidential elections. A decade ago they lost control of the House for the first time in 40 years, and now have lost all the elected branches. They are in a panic that they will lose their one remaining ability to legislate -- through the courts."
I believe in the Senate, too. I like the filibuster. But I also like the Senate's ability to alter the rules when it's obvious that they are being abused.
Despite today’s agreement, this is not a dead issue. Story developing...
Thanks for the great post, Publius!!
You are absolutely right on many of these issues, and of course, I defend the filibuster/looser cloture rules most loudly now that the Dems are out in the cold.
You are also right that Dems have often bemoaned the filibuster rule. . .when it served their purposes.
Yes, you're right again: this issue is not over and the Supreme Court nominations that are surely coming will test the limits of the Senate rules over and over. I'm just glad we got through the current battle in one piece. /jack
Post a Comment