Reinstating the filibuster
So there’s starting to be all sorts of talk about a filibuster. Which makes sense, since Alito is a more conservative appointment than Roberts was, and has far less charisma.
Here’s my question. Suppose Alito is filibustered. Suppose the Republicans aren’t having it and employ the rule-breaking Nuclear Option. The minority party can no longer withhold cloture on judicial nominations.
Then fast forward one year. The Abramoff scandal has taken its toll, and the Democrats have gotten their act together. (I know, I know. Work with me, here.) Maybe the Alito nomination has helped some. The Dems win back the Senate. They up their seat count by 10 to swap places with the Republicans.
Should they now reinstate the judicial filibuster? In this case, would they even be able to, without breaking the rules in the same way the majority will have to now to remove the judicial filibuster? Would any Republicans join in this mission? It would be a pretty clear admission that they were wrong to remove the option now, but wouldn’t it be The Right Thing To Do?
Also, would the answer be any different if they got 60 seats?
I wonder how the crazies at Red State would react to this scenario.
I look forward to your insights. I’ll post more if I get any more information.
Matt Laroche Said,
January 19, 2006 @ 21:49
That’s the thing that bothers me the most about the filibuster: eventually, the Republicans will be out of power (hopefully) and they can do the same thing to the Democrats, and who are the Democrats to complain, since theyh did it to the Republicans?
I agree with filibustering in some cases, I just hope it doesn’t become excessive, so that it doesn’t ruin communication and cooperation in the future.
Alan Said,
January 27, 2006 @ 08:58
Well as a proud crazy person from the reddest of the Red States (where Clinton came in third place behind Ross Perot), my belief is that the Senators should have the courage to vote on the issue, and the lack of maturity shown by a filibuster merely highlights the fact that significant reform is required in the Legislative branches of our government.
I believe that the constitution should be amended to replace the current language which allows congress to set their own procedural rules. The current rules established by the House and Senate have resulted in a system which is prone to abuse and limits the overall effectiveness of the Legislative body.
Specifically, the items which should be addressed (and repaired) are:
- Congressional Hearings where congress attempts to act as the Legislative branch
- Committee system which allows a subset of the elected representatives to decide issues without involvement and representation from the whole body.
- Seniority based leadership positions (Including Committee Membership and Chairmanship)
- Allowing congress to debate issues without a quorum of members present. (Go to the chamber of the House or Senate and 80% of the time, there will be less than 10 people present with some guy rambling on about an issue just so it becomes part of the congressional record)
- Reinforcement of the two party system, which leaves independent or third party candidates without a voice on many issues.
- Ability to amend proposed legislation with unrelated side issues. (pork-barrel)
Just my 2 cents (- 52.8% federal/state/and local taxes)