Quote:
Originally posted by bilmore
A January 1, 1995, Times editorial on proposals to restrict the use of Senate filibusters:
"In the last session of Congress, the Republican minority invoked an endless string of filibusters to frustrate the will of the majority. This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him. . . . Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate views, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser, . . . an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose."
A March 6, 2005, Times editorial on the same subject:
"The Republicans are claiming that 51 votes should be enough to win confirmation of the White House's judicial nominees. This flies in the face of Senate history. . . . To block the nominees, the Democrats' weapon of choice has been the filibuster, a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod. . . . The Bush administration likes to call itself "conservative," but there is nothing conservative about endangering one of the great institutions of American democracy, the United States Senate, for the sake of an ideological crusade."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...aspyj.asp?pg=2
|
In 1995, there were a variety of other rules and procedures by which Senators in the minority could block at least some judicial nomininations. Republicans used those tools to block many of Clinton's nominees, including highly qualified people like the current dean of Harvard Law School, Elena Kagan, who was nominated to the DC Circuit and who never got a vote. Republicans, and Senator Hatch in particular, have now eliminated the same rules and procedures that they used when they were in the minority, leaving Democrats only with the filibuster. If you look at the numbers, Bush is doing fine in getting his nominees confirmed, relative to his predecessors. But (1) Bush is not a man who is OK with anyone standing up to him, and (2) the GOP is spoiling for a fight with Democrats so that they can have an excuse for the impending failure of Social Security "reform." So get ready for the death of the filibuster.
