by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright May 11, 2005
All Rights Reserved.

aking on the White House fight, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) proposed a change in Senate rules, permitting 51 votes to end filibusters. President Bush's judicial nominees have been put on hold by Senate Democrats, unwilling to rubber stamp Bush's picks for the federal bench. Currently, 60 votes are needed to end filibusters. With Republicans currently holding 55 votes, 51 votes would “slam-dunk” GOP proposals, ending, for all practical purposes, the filibuster as a legitimate stalling tactic. “I don't mean to demean the proposal,” said Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), calling Frist's idea “a big wet kiss to the far right.” Ending debate on the filibuster would give the majority carte blanche to beat up on the minority. Should the tables be turned, the GOP would suffer the same fate as Democrats now using the filibuster as leverage.

      Tampering with the filibuster would unravel one of the Senate's key checks and balances. Frist's proposal changes the current “super-majority” or 3/5th's rule requiring 60 votes to end filibusters. Today's bitterly partisan Senate would seize the chance to gleefully railroad the minority, in this case Democrats who currently hold 45 votes. Frist, of course, argues that “advice and consent,” requiring a straight up-or-down vote, is the Senate's primary constitutional duty, now blocked by a hostile minority, unwilling to allow votes on President George W. Bush's conservative judicial nominees. In exchange for changing the filibuster rule, Frist offered Democrats 100 hours of debate on each nominee. But what's the point of debating if the outcome is already set by a strict partisan vote? Frist knows that if the President chose less conservative nominees, the filibuster wouldn't be needed.

      Back in 2003 and 2004, Democrats filibustered 10 appeals court nominees, allowing 34 confirmed—that's 77% of Bush's picks. Frist's proposal would eviscerate the principle of “majority rule and minority rights,” ending over two centuries of bipartisanship. Frist is right that the Senate's constitutional duty involves “advise and consent” on federal judges and Cabinet-level appointees. No one ever said the minority party's role was to rubber-stamp the majority's wishes. Reid rejected Frist's contention that Senate Democrats were shirking their duties, filibustering Bush's picks. Reid urged Frist not to implement the “nuclear option,” allowing 51 votes to end the filibuster, giving the Senate a straight up-or-down vote. Frist doesn't think it's radical to change time-honored Senate rules, giving the minority party sufficient leverage to negotiate more bipartisan nominees.

      Frist's high-stakes “nuclear” option says more about his future plans than his desire to overhaul the Senate. “I don't think it's radical to ask senators to vote. I don't think it's radical to expect senators to fulfill their constitutional duties,” said Frist, accusing Democrats of stalling tactics. Bush's judicial nominees all seem to pass the same litmus test, namely, judges share conservative views . Without saying it directly, Frist agrees with the conservative Family Research Council, insisting the “filibuster is used against people of faith.” “When we think judicial decisions are outstide the mainstream American values, we will say no . . .” said Frist, citing the Terri Schaivo case where judges refused to have Schiavo's feeding tube reinserted. Schiavo's case prompted House conservatives, under the leadership of House Majority Leader Tom Delay (R-Texas) to order retaliation.

      Compromising and deal-making are essential features to doing business in the U.S. Senate. Frist's “nuclear option” would end the majority party's need to do either. Suggesting that the filibuster is “against people of faith” panders to the religious right and hurts time-honored traditions forcing headstrong politicians to negotiate and compromise. “Let's see how we can do in the future. I can't say there won't be filibusters, but I think we're going to have a much better situation than in 2003 and 2004,” said Reid, hoping to discourage Frist and Senate Republicans from implementing the “nuclear” option, tampering with the filibuster. Short of the “nuclear” option, third-ranking U.S. Senator Rick Statorum (R-Pa.) sees the filibuster as an unwarranted attack on majority rule, viewing it as illegitimate. Santorum worries that the current filibuster rule threatens majority rule.

      Positioning himself for a possible run for president in '08, Frist whipped up the GOP conservative base, threatening to end the filibuster with only 51% of the vote. Changing the Senate's rules could boomerang, should Democrats regain traction after the '06 elections. It's doubtful that Democrats will gain the upper hand by the midyear election. “I don't think it helps the country and I don't think it's fair,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), disagreeing with the idea that the filibuster goes against persons of faith. Changing the filibuster would render the minority party impotent, paving way for mob rule. Instead of changing the rules, Frist should work more closely with the White House to help pick more acceptable judges and appointees. While it's a shame that partisan bickering and gridlock exist in Washington, it's also a good thing the filibuster helps create a level playing field.

About the Author

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2005 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.