ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The Free Lance-Star in Fredericksburg, Virginia has some thoughts about Senator Warner's filibuster stance. In an editorial titled "Ignore Thy Enemies," the Free Lance-Star makes the case that Sen. Warner should "vote to end Democratic radicalism in the Senate, despite Jerry Falwell & Company." Here's part of the editorial:

Some religious conservatives in Virginia are muttering that U.S. Sen. John Warner will have electoral perdition to pay if he votes to preserve the ability of Senate Democrats to fatally filibuster George Bush's judicial choices. Not only do the blowhard divines misjudge Mr. Warner, a two-war veteran; their past attempts to punish him for irksome votes all flopped. The only possible effect their new vendettas could have on the six-term solon is to provoke him into shoving a pro-filibuster vote up their noses.

Mr. Warner should vote with the Senate GOP majority to strip Democrats of their judge-blocking power not because the evangelical bishop of Lynchburg and his fellow eminences huff and puff, but because, as the senator truly says, he reveres Senate tradition. Democrats have scorned that tradition by promiscuously checking, actually or by threat, nearly a third of Mr. Bush's appeals-court nominees. No living senator can recall the like. Neither can any living American. This rawly political action calls for a neutralizing political response.

Nothing holy decrees that 40 members should be able to stop a Senate action. Until 1917, one senator alone could do so. From then until 1975, it took a third of the Senate to sustain a filibuster. The requirement is now two-fifths. The bar can be raised further, and should be, allowing the full Senate to approve or reject Mr. Bush's judges, fulfilling its advise-and-consent role. Sen. Warner should ignore the prickly preachers. Spiting them is not ignoring them.

Sen. Warner is understandably concerned about diminishing the traditional right to unlimited debate. But that right's been diminished many timed before, when it has been abused. Why not diminish it again, just enough to ensure that the tradition of up-or-down votes on judicial nominees is restored?