Ending the Senate Impasse

[jbfam4]

Ending the Senate Impasse

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700938.html
Sunday, May 8, 2005; Page B06

The Republicans have their own situational ethics, having come rather late to the purity of their belief in prompt up-or-down votes for every nominee. Moreover, they continue to defend the filibuster when it comes to legislation, citing principled justifications for minority empowerment: that it cools extremism, promotes bipartisan solutions and slows decisions taken in haste or passion. It's not so terrible, they say, to have to persuade 60 senators before imposing momentous change on the country, but they find offensive the same logic applied to a Supreme Court nominee.

Is there more to either side's conversion than a lust for short-term political advantage? There is an honorable way to find out: If compromise proves impossible, the Republicans should propose a reform of Senate rules that would take effect in January 2009.

The debate on the merits and evils of the filibuster could then take place where Republicans and Democrats both say it belongs -- on the level of principle. Democrats could explain why they have lost faith in majority rule. Republicans could explain why majority rule is good sometimes, but not all the time. And both sides would be arguing without knowing who might reap tactical benefit.

[wtmusic]

1. This will never be a debate on principle

because the GOP wants to keep the legislative filibuster. There is no difference (in principle) between legislative and judicial filibusters--so fine, let's axe them all, and watch Orrin Hatch squirm when we have a Dem majority in '06...

[struggle4progress]

2. Since judiciual appointments are life-long, judicial filibuster seems ..

.. more important and more sensible than legislative filibuster ...

[wtmusic]

3. xlnt point n/t