More Articles on the Senate Filibuster Situation

Another article from Terry Eastland in The Weekly Standard (reprinted from The Dallas Morning News), Tuesday:

.... With the Democrats losing the Senate in the midterm elections, Republicans assumed the confirmation process would become much less contentious.

That is, Republicans assumed that the Judiciary Committee they now control would approve nominees and that floor votes then would be scheduled -- and duly held. That last assumption has been proved wrong. Senate rules require not a bare majority but 60 votes to cut off debate and thus permit a vote. With a working minority of 49 senators, the Democrats have the power to vote against ending debate -- to filibuster -- and so they have....

The odds would appear long that the Republicans actually will succeed in changing the rules. The likelihood is that the Democrats will retain their power to filibuster. In which case, the question they will face is how often they can exercise it without hurting their prospects for regaining the Senate in 2004.

Cornyn says "it may take an intervening election" that yields a larger Republican majority before "a majority" finally has the power to exercise "its right to consent." He is right to think an election could resolve the issue. And, indeed, it is an election that should resolve the issue....

(Thanks, Ryan.)

And an interesting opinion from Norman J. Ornstein at AEI (reprinted, I gather, from NYT) yesterday:

Frustration over the use of the filibuster is as old as the filibuster itself. Virtually every decade for at least the last 80 years, presidents or Senate leaders have called for reform of the filibuster rule. Now it is Bill Frist's turn -- but he should think twice before acting. Any rule changes could have unhappy consequences.

The filibuster, which allows a single senator to block a vote by prolonging debate indefinitely, has long played an important role in the American system of government. Unlimited debate goes back to the origins of the Senate, which was designed as the more deliberative chamber of Congress. Not until 1917 was a rule (Rule 22) instituted to put some restraints on debate; a two-thirds vote could cut it off. In 1975, the requirement was changed to three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 senators -- regardless of how many are present....

Filibusters now happen all the time, but basically change nothing about Senate business -- except to raise the bar for passage from 51 votes to 60. This is wrongheaded and unfortunate. For most issues, a sliding scale of cloture votes, to allow for extended debate but also force eventual votes, makes sense. (For significant and highly charged issues -- including judicial nominations -- the traditional 24-hour filibuster process still should apply.) Dr. Frist has proposed something similar for all presidential nominations. But reform should proceed in a straightforward fashion under existing rules.

Otherwise, Dr. Frist will be putting both the Senate and his own party at risk. The Senate is a unique and fragile legislative body. Its members have to get along for the simple reason that most basic Senate business -- from scheduling action on a bill to calling a committee meeting -- requires unanimous consent. Consensus and bipartisanship are absolutely necessary.

If Republicans unilaterally void a rule they themselves have employed in the past, they will break the back of comity in the Senate. Democrats could block Republican legislative efforts at every turn. For a short-term victory now, Republicans would reap the whirlwind.

(Thanks, Ryan.)

Lane Core Jr. CIW P — Thu. 05/15/03 07:29:58 AM
Categorized as Political.