Sunday, April 24, 2005
Guess Who Has the Biggest Filibuster Nuke?
A week ago, I posted on the so-called "nuclear" option that would let a majority of senators vote to stop a filbuster of a nominee to a judicial postion. I thought it was a lot of noise about partisan politics as usual, with the minority party (Democrats today) trying to use a PR campaign to dominate the majority party.
I learned something new from this article on the Filibuster about a more seriously "nuclear" cloture option than the current one. How about a Senate proposal that : " would amend Senate rules to end all filibusters, not just those against judicial nominees. The proposal’s sponsor said that “the filibuster rules are unconstitutional” and was quoted as saying “the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.” He announced his intent to end all filibusters with an unambiguous statement: “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt. So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.”"
You haven't heard about that "Biggest Filibuster Nuke" proposal? : "Why? Because the proposal wasn’t offered by Republicans; it was introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure."
As I said, it's all politics as usual - it's just that now the Democrats need a filibuster to stop a Republican President and Senate majority from making appointments. In fact, there is a long tradition of majority voting for nominees without filbusters; and a strong case that anything else is unconstitutional. As the article notes : "the restoration of Senate rules and traditions for judicial nominees enjoys both historical support and Senate precedent. But the constitutional power of a majority of Senators to strengthen, improve, and reform Senate rules and procedures is also expressly stated in the Constitution, and was unanimously endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin.
In Ballin, the Court unanimously held that unless the Constitution expressly provides for a supermajority vote, the constitutional rule is majority vote."
Of course, there is no supermajority provision in the Constitution for Senate Advise and Consent on nominees. Seems the more we learn about this issue, the weaker the Democrat's case gets.
I learned something new from this article on the Filibuster about a more seriously "nuclear" cloture option than the current one. How about a Senate proposal that : " would amend Senate rules to end all filibusters, not just those against judicial nominees. The proposal’s sponsor said that “the filibuster rules are unconstitutional” and was quoted as saying “the filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy.” He announced his intent to end all filibusters with an unambiguous statement: “We cannot allow the filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt. So today I start a drive to do away with a dinosaur — the filibuster rule.”"
You haven't heard about that "Biggest Filibuster Nuke" proposal? : "Why? Because the proposal wasn’t offered by Republicans; it was introduced in 1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D., Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure."
As I said, it's all politics as usual - it's just that now the Democrats need a filibuster to stop a Republican President and Senate majority from making appointments. In fact, there is a long tradition of majority voting for nominees without filbusters; and a strong case that anything else is unconstitutional. As the article notes : "the restoration of Senate rules and traditions for judicial nominees enjoys both historical support and Senate precedent. But the constitutional power of a majority of Senators to strengthen, improve, and reform Senate rules and procedures is also expressly stated in the Constitution, and was unanimously endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin.
In Ballin, the Court unanimously held that unless the Constitution expressly provides for a supermajority vote, the constitutional rule is majority vote."
Of course, there is no supermajority provision in the Constitution for Senate Advise and Consent on nominees. Seems the more we learn about this issue, the weaker the Democrat's case gets.
