Are the days of obstruction numbered?
The QandO Blog
Posted by: McQ
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Even the LA Times is tired of the obstructionism the Dems are playing in terms of judicial nominees. In an editorial today:
<<<
At the risk of seeming dull or unfashionable for not getting our own intellectual makeover, we still think judicial candidates nominated by a president deserve an up-or-down vote in the Senate. We hardly see eye to eye with the far right on social issues, and we oppose some of these judicial nominees, but we urge Republican leaders to press ahead with their threat to nuke the filibuster. The so-called nuclear option entails a finding by a straight majority that filibusters are inappropriate in judicial confirmation battles.
>>>
That's been the essential argument on this blog. Get them out of committee and have a vote in the Senate as the Constitution requires. The LAT however goes a step further. It wants filbusters nuked for all time:
<<<
The filibuster debate is a stark reminder of the unprincipled and results-oriented nature of politics, as senators readily switch sides for tactical advantage. Politicians' lack of consistency on fundamental matters — the debate over the proper balance of power between Washington and the states would be another case in point — is far more corrosive to the health of American democracy and the rule of law than any number of Bush- appointed judges could ever be. For one thing, it validates public wariness about politicians professing deep convictions.
>>>
I'm not particularly that concerned about approprate use of a tool or techinique like filibuster in the full Senate with one side making the other actually do what filibuster means. Stay on the floor constantly, 24/7 until one side concedes. Those sorts of things normally take care of themselves in fairly short order. But I do agree with the gist of the LAT's point about this argument. There are no deep convictions on either side of this debate concerning the tradition of flilbuster. Those leading the arguments on either side today were arguing the opposite side a few short years ago.
<<<
The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators. It's no accident that most filibusters have hindered progressive crusades in Washington, be it on civil rights or campaign finance reform. California's Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, one of those recent converts to the filibuster, embarrassed herself by hailing Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) as her inspiration at a pro-filibuster rally. At least Byrd is being consistent in his support — he filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
>>>
The obviousness of the effort by the left to block the nominees makes them look less and less credible as witnessed by the example of Boxer and Byrd. This isn't about "Senate tradition" and deep convictions, this is simply bare knuckle politics ... and its getting tiresome.
So, in a rare occurrance, I agree, at least partially, with the editoral board of the LA Times. Nuke the filibuster in the judiciary committee. And also change the rules to require any filibuster to be an actual filibuster. If either side is going to do it, we, the overtaxed public, should at least be treated to the entertainment value of a CSPAN spectacle featuring Teddy Kennedy trying to be coherent at 2am after a night out on the town. TiVo will never be the same.
qando.net
latimes.com |
