|
For the Week of March 7 - 11, 2005
In 1979 Senator Robert Byrd concluded that "Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past," that senators can "change an abominable rule by a majority vote" and that "it is in the interests of the Senate and in the interests of the nation that the majority must work its will." I could not agree with Senator Byrd more, and for this reason it is high time the Democrats allowed President Bush's nominees the courtesy of up or down votes. Unfortunately, Senator Byrd and his colleagues have changed their tune since being in the minority. Senator Byrd loves to lecture about Senate history, and during his 47 years in office he has certainly seen his fair share. The problem with his recent lessons, however, is that he is selective with his memory. The Washington Times explained in an editorial this week that, "Mr. Byrd led the charge to change the [Senate] rules in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987, and, in some cases, to do precisely what Republicans are now proposing." But even more surprising than Byrd's argument were the words that he used to make his point. In comparing Republicans to Nazis, Senator Byrd said the following: "We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws, not of men. But witness how men with motives and a majority can manipulate law to cruel and unjust ends." Senator Byrd even likened Republican attempts to stop filibusters of judges to the crucifixion of Christ, the smearing of Columbus, and the torture of Christians. As one would expect, Byrd's remarks were denounced by Jewish groups, the Anti-Defamation League, and many others. Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) even called for an apology. But Senator Byrd's Senate colleagues rose to his defense. Immediately following Senator Byrd's diatribe, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) praised him "for his excellent comments," calling them "well thought out, reasoned, compelling, legitimate, and persuasive." Other Democrat Senators soon followed suit. Then there's the always impartial New York Times' coverage of the filibuster issue. Ten years ago during the Clinton Administration, the paper called the filibuster "the tool of the sore loser" in an editorial. But this week in an editorial the paper supports "the historic role of the filibuster." So how have we gotten to this point? The answer is liberal special interest groups are demanding that Senate Democrats require a supermajority (60 votes) to confirm the President's nominees. This obstruction is absolutely unprecedented. The filibuster now extends to circuit and even district court nominees. The Constitution requires that the Senate give its advice and consent to nominees. It does not require a supermajority - only a majority vote of the Senate. But instead, the Democrats are denying President Bush's nominees the courtesy of an up-or-down vote through the filibuster. President Bush won three and one-half million more votes than his opponent this past November despite the fact that liberal special interest groups spent millions of dollars to defeat him. Since they lost at the ballot box, they now want to control the makeup of federal courts. Nearly one third of the President's court of appeals nominees are either currently being filibustered or have been blocked under the threat of filibuster. The traditions of the Constitution and the United States Senate call for the President's nominees to receive up-or-down votes under full consideration of the Senate. It is time to take the special interest groups out of the process of confirming judges and do what is fair, just, and consistent with traditional rules. Let's drop the tactic that the New York Times called "the tool of the sore loser."
|
Dear Republican,
