Now we are treated to a fine discussion of the 'nuclear option' in the US Senate, i.e., the possibility that the Republican majority will change the rules of business, and outlaw filibusters in judicial confirmation hearings. After all, we can't let a tiny majority of the people frustrate the legitimate wishes of the elected majority, can we?
Or can we? The filibuster is a curious rule that is peculiar to the United States government, and to the Senate. The House got rid of a similar institution long ago. Our government has a concern for minority rights built right into its foundation, from the Great Compromise that gave us the House and the Senate, and onward. The filibuster itself has a bad image because its most famous use was to stall legislation to redress the wrongs of Jim Crow during the civil rights movement of the late 50s and the 60s. Southern Democrats (the south was always Democratic - Lincoln was a Republican!) used it to great effect against the Voting Rights act, etc. I guess that conservative Republicans thought that was okay.
Well, face it, the filibuster is nasty and rather distasteful. Use it carefully, because you know your opponent can and will use it when they feel their back is to the wall. In a parliamentary government, I guess a Vote of No Confidence would end the impasse, but we have our own system, and parliaments have their own problems.
Regarding the current "crisis," I have to say that it appears to me that if the filibuster rule is to be eliminated, it should be eliminated for legislation, not judicial confirmations. After all, can't we allow the minority to frustrate the will of the majority in the case of individual judges? Can't the country live with that? And legislation, which affects the nation as a whole, can be repealed - not the tenure of judges. So if the filibuster is to be prohibited, I'd say it should be disallowed for legislative fights and preserved for confirmations.
The fact of the matter is that the Democrats have been far more amenable to GWB's appointments than the Republicans were to Clinton's - that's a documented fact. I see no reason why they should give in when he tries to appoint a handful of unqualified or extremist judges to important positions for life.
Or can we? The filibuster is a curious rule that is peculiar to the United States government, and to the Senate. The House got rid of a similar institution long ago. Our government has a concern for minority rights built right into its foundation, from the Great Compromise that gave us the House and the Senate, and onward. The filibuster itself has a bad image because its most famous use was to stall legislation to redress the wrongs of Jim Crow during the civil rights movement of the late 50s and the 60s. Southern Democrats (the south was always Democratic - Lincoln was a Republican!) used it to great effect against the Voting Rights act, etc. I guess that conservative Republicans thought that was okay.
Well, face it, the filibuster is nasty and rather distasteful. Use it carefully, because you know your opponent can and will use it when they feel their back is to the wall. In a parliamentary government, I guess a Vote of No Confidence would end the impasse, but we have our own system, and parliaments have their own problems.
Regarding the current "crisis," I have to say that it appears to me that if the filibuster rule is to be eliminated, it should be eliminated for legislation, not judicial confirmations. After all, can't we allow the minority to frustrate the will of the majority in the case of individual judges? Can't the country live with that? And legislation, which affects the nation as a whole, can be repealed - not the tenure of judges. So if the filibuster is to be prohibited, I'd say it should be disallowed for legislative fights and preserved for confirmations.
The fact of the matter is that the Democrats have been far more amenable to GWB's appointments than the Republicans were to Clinton's - that's a documented fact. I see no reason why they should give in when he tries to appoint a handful of unqualified or extremist judges to important positions for life.
1 comment:
To me the revealing thing is we are hearing everything about "the nuclear option" and nothing about the actual positions of these judges which even moderates on both sides have trouble with. Im biased as hell, but you can check out quotes and decisions and I think you'll agree they are radicals and as unfit for the Fed.bench as I am.
Post a Comment