ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Senator Reid of Nevada delivered the Democrats' Weekly Radio Address this weekend. Here's an excerpt:

They [the GOP] are trying to eliminate a two-hundred-year-old American rule that says that every member of the Senate has the right to rise to say their piece and speak on behalf of the people that sent them here. . . . When it comes down to it, stripping away these important checks and balances is about the arrogance of those in power who want to rewrite the rules so that they can get their way.

Where to begin? Let's start with the portion in bold. Reid correctly acknowledged on January 5, 1995 that checks and balances have nothing to do with filibusters:

Checks and balances has nothing to do with protecting a small State. . . . The filibuster is uniquely situated to protect a small State in population like Nevada.

Indeed, "checks and balances" means the arrangement of governmental powers whereby powers of one branch check or balance those of other branches. Since when is the Senate minority in a different branch from the Senate majority? Maybe that happened at about the same time the Supreme Court joined the legislative branch. Anyway, Senator Reid also emphasized in 1995 that the filibuster is a privilege that is only to be used for legislation, and used sparingly:

32 filibusters in the 103d Congress compared to a total of 16 in the entire 19th century---evidences its abuse by an obstinate partisan minority. Having said all that, however, I do not support the elimination of the privilege. I say privilege because that is what I believe the filibuster to be. A unique privilege---to be used sparingly and only in those instances when a Member believes the legislation involves the gravest concerns to his or her constituents.

Senator Reid knows very well that the GOP is not seeking to eliminate the filibuster for legislation, or even seeking to limit or restrict its use for legislation. How can anyone take Reid seriously when he changes his story whenever it suits him? First he says that filibusters have nothing to do with checks and balances, but then he says they're critical to checks and balances. First he says that filibusters are to be used sparingly and only for legislation, but then he says they're to be used frequently for nominations. First he says that conducting a real, live filibuster of legislation is a privilege, but then he says that conducting a fake, silent filibuster of nominations is a right.

Each Democratic Senator ought to be allowed to speak for at least a week or so about a nomination if he or she likes, but then let's have an up-or-down vote. Senator Reid knows very well that no judicial nominee having clear majority support in the Senate was ever defeated by filibuster, until Reid and his cohorts started doing so in 2003. Talk about "arrogance."

UPDATE: If filibustering nominations has anything to do with the separation of powers, it has to do with weakening that separation rather than strengthening it, as discussed elsewhere at confirmthem.