Topic: Filibuster!
This is my thread about the ongoing filibustering issue in the Senate over Bush's judicial nominees. For anyone that hasn't been following the story, I shall provide a short introduction. Bush nominated some conservative judges back in his first term. Democrats blocked them by use of the filibuster, around 10 out of 218 so far. So what's the big deal about Democrats blocking them? The religious right got mad, pulled some strings, and now the Republicans are going to try to bar the use of the filibuster over judicial nominees. There are wide expectations this will result in further partisan polarization or gridlock in the Senate and possibly the virtual shutting down of the US Senate.
Someone I know said it is a storm in a teacup, but I disagree. I believe that if this ban passes it will have dire consequences on how our government operates, and further what the political climate in this country will be. If the filibustering continues, the prospects are slightly less bleak, but that partisan atmosphere will still get worse.
I think the blame goes full circle on this one too. The Democrats take a big part of the cake for using and abusing the filibuster. The founding fathers did not intend for it to be used to block Presidential appointments. The Senate was there as a check to consent and advise, not to indefinitely hold up nominees forever because a minority of Senators protest it. Bush's nominees do indeed deserve an up or down vote.
The Republicans are over-reacting to the situation though, and the leadersip in the Senate should probably not seriously consider a ban on judicial filibusters. The problems I have with this are numerous, but in short the method of their doing it (changing the rules in the middle of a session and open debate, and not doing so with 66 votes but rather a ruling from Dick Cheney or some 51 vote scheme) is one big one. The timing is another important factor, it was right after a heated election and Bush promised to reach out to Democrats. By renominating his same old conservative Texas buddies, he invalidated that promise. At any rate, a complete ban is not the way to do it. Compromise and negotiation are what the Senate was founded on, not partisan bickery. Doing this only goes farther down that road and opens that same can of worms that the Democrats started after the 2000 election.
Bush has a pretty big share of the pie here too, maybe even the biggest one, for nominating some of the people he has nominated. And then renominating them. Then refusing to compromise and further refusing to have anything but his way 100% of the time. It's a Texas thing, and it is why I find the man to be incredibly annoying. He could have just been happy with that 95% success rate and/or re-chosen people. Or accepted some compromise offer. Or make good on his promise not to push a purely conservative agenda and work with Democrats. He hasn't done any of them, and it isn't likely he will.
I guess what I want to see happen is for both the filibuster and the ban to fail and for some sort of detente to be reached. Gridlock is ok, but this goes beyond gridlock. This is debasing politics and frankly I think politics has gone too far on both sides, infecting something like judicial appointments. The right is going on a power grab and the left is pushing its luck by abusing minority rights.
I suppose time will tell where it ends, but these were just my two cents.