. . . amid fog

• Article
• Comments ()
• Click-2-Listen
• Videos

By

The fierce political battle over President Bush's judicial nominations may soon reach a climax, as talk of a compromise swept through the Capitol this week.

But with each side escalating its rhetoric to a fever pitch and their loyal allies mounting a multimillion-dollar ad campaign, the possibility of a bipartisan deal seemed problematic at best.

The whole business has been clouded by a confusing fog of issues, from religious beliefs to constitutional checks and balances, that seem to have strayed from the central rulemaking issue before the Senate: Should a minority of senators be allowed to prevent a simple up-or-down vote on judicial nominees?

The Democrats believe they have the right to use -- I would say abuse -- the filibuster rule for unlimited debate in confirmation proceedings for the sole purpose of preventing a vote, unless a supermajority of 60 senators agrees to end that debate and proceed to a roll call vote.

But the Constitution gives them no such right and for more than 200 years the Senate, with virtually no exceptions, has brought a president's judicial nominees up for a vote in the Judiciary Committee, and if reported to the full Senate, for an up-or-down vote by a simple majority.

The Constitution merely says the president "shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" to appoint judges. The Senate has the right to reject such judges, but does it have the legal right -- once a nomination is before the Senate -- to actively prevent a vote on the president's nominee in a self-governing democracy such as ours?

Clearly, the minority does not have that right and the Democrats who claim they do are, well, being undemocratic.

The Senate's filibuster rule of unlimited debate (the House has no such rule) was created to guarantee the rights of the minority for a full and fair discussion of every piece of legislation. The rule is there to prevent the tyranny of the majority from riding roughshod over the minority.

A single senator can object to a bill and filibuster against it until the majority can get cloture to end "debate" and proceed to a vote. Such a rule has an appropriate place in legislative proceedings no matter how inconvenient it can sometimes be for the orderly flow of public business.

The genius of our representative form of government is in part due to the legislative hoops and hurdles the Founding Fathers created to make it difficult for bad legislation to become law.