May 9, 2003

Ending gridlock in the Senate

The Washigton times is reporting that Sen Bill Frist will introduce a plan to end the filibuster against 2 judicial nominees:

Currently, 60 votes are required to break a filibuster, which is also called invoking cloture. The resolution, co-sponsored by several senators, will require 60 votes only in the first attempt at invoking cloture. In each attempt after that, the vote requirement will drop by three until it reaches a simple majority of 51 votes.
This rule change will apply only to executive nominations, not legislative business.

This is a hard one to call. A filibuster is one of the few tools which allow the minority party to retain some power in Congress, and nowhere is that more important than in making lifetime judicial appointments. A simple majority vote can determine the judicial balance for the next 20 years or so, with a ripple effect reaching even further.

On the other hand, the Constitution specifies that a simple majority is all that is required for confirmation. By holding up the process through filibuster, the dems are circumventing the Constitution, albeit legally.

To make matters more interesting, the rule change was introuced by a Democrat, Zell Miller of Georgia, and was based on a proposal by two more Democrats, Joe Leiberman and Tom Harkin. Of course, Lieberman and Harkin introduced the idea when the reps were in the minority and blocking democratic judicial nominees.

Applying my acid test to the idea, "Do I want the other side to have this power when the tables are turned?" I feel uneasy. Which is more important, filling judicial vacancies, or maintaining the integrity of the filibuster?

Unlike some of you, I kinda like gridlock. The more those yahoos argue and bicker with each other, the less chance they have of doing something that limits my freedom. Unfortunately, there are some things that have to get done, and judicial appointments is one of them.

In the end, it comes down to getting the job done. Both parties have demonstrated over the last 16 years or so that they will do anything to frustrate the other, not always out of conviction, but often out of spite. Moderates on both sides are forced by their party leadership to toe the line, resulting in bitter partisan battles without hope of compromise.

Is this "nuclear option" a reasonable solution? Perhaps not, but in a time when reason has deserted the Senate, maybe unreasonable measures are the only solution.

Posted by Rich at May 9, 2003 11:28 AM | TrackBack