Saving the Filibuster
by TChris
TalkLeft has frequently written in opposition to the "nuclear option" -- the Republican threat to change the Senate rules to eliminate the filibuster. (Previous posts are here, here, here and here.) The president and some Senate Republicans are unhappy that ten unqualified candidates for federal judgeships were blocked during the president's first term, notwithstanding the 200-plus nominees who were confirmed. If they can't have their way, every time, they throw a tantrum.
The NY Times editorial page today, as it has in the past, takes a stand against the nuclear option.
Many of the wisest Republicans are well aware that their leaders are playing a dangerous game and that they are doing it for frivolous reasons. The judicial nominees can easily be replaced. But the sense that there are certain rules that all must play by, whether to their advantage or not, is something that cannot be restored. Senators need only to look at the House to see what politics looks like when the only law is to win at any cost.
The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained majority rule. ... Indeed, as a recent New Yorker article pointed out, the Democratic senators who have blocked that handful of judicial nominees actually represent substantially more Americans than the Republican majority that wants to see them passed.
| < Calls For Reform to End Police Abuse in Sealy, TX | School Whistleblowers Protected by Title IX > |
