April 12, 2005
WHO'D CARE?:
Failure Buster: The filibuster helps conservatives more than liberals. It’s time to get rid of it. (Matthew Yglesias, 04.12.05, American Prospect)
Washington is abuzz with talk that the Senate Republicans will deploy the so-called "nuclear option" -- in essence, violating the rules of the Senate to eliminate the possibility of mounting a filibuster against a presidential nominee -- in order to obtain the confirmation of a handful of President George W. Bush's appointments to the federal judiciary. Senate Democrats, naturally enough, are plotting a second strike: Through various manipulations of the Senate rules, they will bring the entire legislative process to a grinding halt. And rightly so. There's no particular reason why filibusters should be banned just for nomination votes, and there's certainly no justification for doing so in a way that violates the Senate's rules. The politics of the fight that would ensue are uncertain but probably winnable for the Democrats. The substantive outcome -- no passage of any bills of any sort -- is the best liberals can hope for, given the current correlation of political forces inside the Beltway.
It would, of course, be a change in the rules, not a violation of them. But Mr. Yglesias is too conservative: the best America can hope for is that the Democrats shut down the Congress. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 12, 2005 4:56 PM
Does he mean the Robert Byrd & Mike Mansfield 'violation' of Senate rules? I'm confused.
Posted by: jim hamlen at April 12, 2005 5:14 PMoj - 2 citations to other blogs in one day - are you becoming a blogosphere controversialist?
Posted by: pj at April 12, 2005 5:44 PMblog?
Posted by: oj at April 12, 2005 7:28 PMYglesias is a well-known blogger: http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/
I assumed from the name this was a reference to his blog, didn't realize he has a column now.
Posted by: pj at April 12, 2005 7:47 PMAs was noted in the Corner today this argument is infuriating in that it is the Dems, not the GOP, who are breaking with tradition. For almost 200 years no judicial nominees were blocked and then the Dems started doing it commonly in 2003. And where in the constitution does it say you need 60 votes to pass a nominee? All the GOP is trying to do is to return to common practice before 2003.
Posted by: AWW at April 12, 2005 7:58 PMYou know what really amazes me about this whole filibuster "debate?" That we've not heard from Jesse Helms about this. You'd think the MSM would jump at glee at the spectacle of Helms ripping his former GOP colleagues (and he would, given his reputation) on wanting to stop this filibuster.
But I guess hatred for ol' Senator NO still runs deep in MSM territory.
Posted by: Brad S at April 12, 2005 9:07 PM"There's no particular reason why filibusters should be banned just for nomination votes..."
Wrong.
“He (the President) shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint…Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers (lower court judges)…”
Treaties require Advice & consent.
Judges require Advice & consent.
Treaties require a super-majority.
Judges do not.
Therefore,
Consent for treaties=60 votes
Consent for judges=51 votes
The Senate may no more insert a super-majority requirement for judges than they may remove the super-majority for treaties. The Senate has control of its rules, but the Constitution cannot be amended by those rules.
Not to mention that no actual filibuster takes place. No one is making speeches. They only announce their intention to do so and that is enough. Even Jimmy Stewart(R.-Hollywood) actually speechified in the movie.
Not only that, but Byrd decries the loss of "unlimited debate"; a real filibuster is not a debate. It is the very opposite of a debate--a monologue. And if the elderly Byrd actually attempted it, it would no doubt become an Angina Monologue.
Posted by: Noel at April 13, 2005 12:21 AMCorrection: 2/3rds required for treaties is 67 votes.
And calling this the "Constitutional Option" points up the obvious: Democrats regard the Constitution as optional.
Posted by: Noel at April 13, 2005 1:01 AM