Freedom of Press is limited to those who own one - H.L. Mencken

Monday, April 18, 2005

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about the GOP initiative to exercise the “nuclear option” and change the rules governing the number of votes necessary to override a filibuster.  In the WaPo today, an editorial by NRO contributor Stephen Moore lays out why this is a bad idea.

The so-called “nuclear option,” a parliamentary tactic proposed by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, would override the 60-vote rule in the Senate to break a filibuster of judicial nominees and allow approval of these judges with 51 votes. While the two of us disagree on the records of the judges we want to see presiding over our courts, we believe it is dangerous to pull an end run around the filibuster. We believe this even though we have both been frustrated at different times by the way the filibuster has been used to block legislation that we favor: During the 1960s filibusters were used to block civil rights bills; more recently they have been used to block some of President Bush’s tax and economic policies and some of his judicial nominees.

Senate Republicans, who are in the majority today with 55 votes, seem to forget that throughout the 1950s, ‘60s and ‘70s, it was they who were in the minority and who used the filibuster to great effect against a tide of Democratic initiatives. When the political winds shift, Republicans will be back out of power in the Senate and will be reminded of the virtues of the filibuster in protecting their minority positions.  ...

What troubles us most is that the “nuclear option” could become a routine tactic for the majority party in the Senate to push legislation through with only a 51-vote requirement for passage. The Senate was always envisioned by the Founders to be the deliberative body in Congress, in which the heated emotions of the moment’s debate could cool before new laws or judges were approved. The filibuster and the 60-vote cloture rule are nearly indispensable in facilitating full debate and strong consensus for legislative action.

It is clear to us that it takes a two-thirds majority (67 votes) to change the Senate’s standing rules. The filibuster will become effectively emasculated over time if a precedent is set that a simple majority of the Senate can override the 60-vote rule whenever the majority feels frustrated by the actions of 41 senators. As such, this rule change could eventually apply to all legislation and thereby be used as a tool to create a Senate majority with absolute power.

They’re absolutely right.  The Democrats are being obstructionist dickheads right now, and Bush’s nominees are being used for nothing but political posturing to score points with the Democrat electoral base.  It’s an unconscionable attack on judges with expressed religious and conservative beliefs.  There’s no excusing what the Democrats are doing.  But eliminating the power of the filibuster is more akin to the Vietnam-era statement that “we had to destroy the village in order to save it.” One day the GOP is going to be the minority party in Congress.  (I think it’s going to happen sooner than anyone thinks.  My prediction: look for the Democrats to pick up the Senate in 2006.) And when the find themselves in the minority, they’re sure as hell going to wish they had that filibuster.