Progressive Power At Any Cost

In November of 2003 John W. Dean wrote a Salon article entitled, Three cheers for the Democrats' filibuster. "It's time to depoliticize the judicial appointment process," he said. 

In truth, the successful use of the filibuster to block extremist judicial appointees is one of the healthiest developments since our founding fathers required presidents to get the Senate's "advice and consent" to fill judicial seats. Federal judges are given lifetime appointments; thus their influence extends long past the term of the president who selects them. To require a super-majority discourages either party from engaging in politicalization of the judiciary.

During the past four decades, selecting judges and getting them confirmed has become far more contentious. According to a report of the Congressional Reference Service, filibusters and clotures have been involved in 35 nominations, most of them since the late 1980s.

Politicizing judicial appointments is apparently what happens when a Republican president makes one.  Times and presidents have changed.  There is a Democrat in the White House and Democrat majority in the Senate, but come January the majority will be a smaller one than the one they have now.  The filibuster is not so good anymore.

All Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him to consider action to change long-sacrosanct filibuster rules.

The letter, delivered this week, expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses. While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.

[...]

The fact that every returning Democrat signed the letter circulated by Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Mark Warner, D-Va., urging changes underscores growing determination on the part of the Senate’s majority to raise the bars for filibusters.

Adding to the momentum for change, say proponents, is a push by Udall to seek a simple majority vote on changing Senate rules at the start of the session, rather than a two-thirds majority, that is gaining steam. Such a move could come at the start of next Congress, shortly after the Senate returns on January 5th.

Although Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa., has long backed filibuster reform, Senate rules changes have primarily been pushed this year by newer members, including Sens. Michael Bennet, D-Colo.; Jeff Merkley, D-Ore.; Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.; Udall; and McCaskill.

Retiring Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd was the only Democrat who would not sign the letter, no doubt anticipating that Democrats would regret any alteration of rules when they find themselves in the minority again, which they most assuredly will.

 

Comments

[PJ Smith]

The silly socialists change the rules with every election. May-hap this time they'll wind up hoist by their own petard come 2012. Wait! I sense that 2011 is amazingly close so I must hurry to wish you and your readers a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

[Tom Bowler]

Thanks, PJ. And the same to you and yours.