The Nuking of the Senate

Democrats in the US Senate are whining again, this time over the possibility of losing the ability to filibuster the approval of federal court nominees.

Please note the fact that I'm specifying the federal court appointees...it's important.

Democrats have said that if the filibuster is voted down in what is called the "nuclear option", the rights of the minority in the US Senate will become nonexistant.

"If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check ontheir power," said Senator Harry Reid, D-NV. "The radical right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want. And not just on judges. Their power will be unchecked on Supreme Court nominees, the President's nominees in general, and legislation like Social Security privitization."

Well, there are three things wrong with this whole debate...or at least the way the Liberals are framing it...

The first is that while Reid and other liberals are complaining that the nuclear option will destroy the historic traditions of the US Senate, in reality, the right to use the filibuster has been abolished in certain cases. For example, the filibuster can not be used to block use of force measures in foreign policy, they can not filibuster budget bills, and they can not block reconciliation bills...where the two houses of Congress introduce compromise bills when both houses have passed bills on the same issue.

The thing is, the filibuster was not originally in the Constitution, and originally it took 67 votes to stop a filibuster. In the 1970s, this was changed to 60. Originally, the filibuster meant that you stood in the Senate chamber with a telephone book or dictionary and spoke about anything under the sun until you stopped. Ifyou did, even to go to the bathroom, the filibuster stopped.

That is not how things work nowdays.

So, not only is the filibuster not a part of the US Constitution, but the filibuster has been limited in the past, both in what can be filibustered, and how many votes are needed to break one once it gets started.

The second problem I have with this present collectionof whining from the Democrats is that they are obviously trying to imply that the entire universe will be doomed if the Republicans are allowed to get their way.

Senator Reid said that the nuclear option will mean that Republicans will be able to almost automatically get their way on "the President's nominees in general, and legislation like Social Security privitization."

This is patently false. The nuclear option is framed by the parameters of the debate. This means that the rules change is specifically on the nomination of appointees to the Courts. The President's nomination to the Director of the FDA won't be affected by the nuclear option, and except for the exceptions I noted above: use of force measures, reconciliation bills, or budget bills, filibusters can still be used against legislation.

I can tell that Harry Reid is trying to frighten the American people because he specifically mentioned Social Security...a very testy issue, especially with the nation's senior citizens. The fact that the Liberals can't oppose an issue without trying to frighten the American people is pathetic, to be honest.

The third problem I have is that filibustering judicial nominees steps outside the Senate's role in the process. According to the Constitution, the Senate is supposed to "advise and consent" on the topic of judicial nominees. This is fulfilled in the committee level, where nominees are reported out of the committee with a recommendation. The recommendation is either to aprove the nominee, to not approve the nominee, or the committee can send the nominee to the floor of the Senate with no recommendation...and this is generally thought to be a mark of disapproval.

But the person in question gets to the Senate floor for a vote.

Let me tell you something. I don't care if the nominees are the most radical people on the face of the planet, right or left. The President's nominees deserve an up or down vote. If they are too radical, than gather the votes to defeat them in a fair vote, and if the nominee is indeed radical, that should not be too hard a task.

I could respect the filibuster more if they actually DID a real filibuster. Nowdays however, filibusters are no real big deal...the person doing the filibuster is not inconvenienced at all.

As it is, the filibuster needs to be nuked.

Democrats have warned that the Republicans will rue the day that Democrats are in power and have majorities in the Senate.

The Liberals are missing the point. This is a matterof principle, and good principles deserve a vigorous defense.