Filibuster Follies

CNS News ^ | 5-6-05 | Ed Feulner

[FlyLow]

Some lawmakers may not realize it, but there's a fine line between raising legitimate objections and simply obstructing business.

In the Senate, a minority of senators is using the filibuster as a tool to prevent a vote on judicial nominees they dislike. We'll learn soon if the Senate's rules really allow that.

Some obstructionists now claim that they do, even though they strongly disputed that notion just a few years ago. It's worth wondering why they're flip-flopping. Perhaps it's because the abuse of those rules may be the only way to keep activist judges in control of the nation's most important courts.

The filibuster has deep roots. And no matter what happens with nominations, senators still can filibuster almost any legislation . The filibuster is an important device to force compromise on legislation, and Congress has the sole power to pass and present legislation to the president. Not so with judicial appointments.

For most of the Senate's history, it was crystal clear that the filibuster could not be used for judicial-confirmation debates. A change in the filibuster language in 1949, however, made it unclear. Still, no filibuster ever prevented an up-or-down vote on a judicial nominee before 2003. Never. The Senate majority wouldn't tolerate that abuse of its rules.

[garvai]

Oct. 1, 1968: Senate Republicans and conservative Democrats filibuster President Johnson's nomination of Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the United States. Fortas' nomination was eventually withdrawn.