« Seipp Takes Estrich Downtown | Main | Tax Reform Update »
April 27, 2005
Bob Dole On The Constitutional Option
Bob Dole argues persuasively in the New York Times for adopting the "Constitutional option", which would require only a simple majority for confirmation of federal judicial nominees (nod to Decision '08). Highlights:
When I was a leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition.
In the traditional spirit of Senate congeniality, Dole would prefer a negotiated settlement among the warring sides. But he notes that if majority leader Bill Frist cannot persuade the Dems to abandon their obstructionism, Frist could very well move to change the Senate rules:
By doing so, [Frist] will be acting in accordance with Article I of the Constitution (which gives Congress the power to set its own rules) and consistently with the tradition of altering these rules by establishing new precedents. Senator Frist was right this past weekend when he observed there is nothing "radical" about a procedural technique that gives senators the opportunity to vote on a nominee.
Dole then points out, as have others, that the Democrats have in the past worked to end the very delaying tactics they now claim to be Constitutionally sacrosanct. (Does the word "filibuster" appear in the Constitution?):
In fact, one of today's leading opponents of changing the Senate's rules, Senator Robert Byrd, was once a proponent of doing so, and on several occasions altered Senate rules through majoritarian means.
Bill Frist, and the Senate Republicans, must not lose this fight, or else GWB's victory will be neutralized less than six months after the election.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.thebernoullieffect.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/122
