OPINION & EDITORIAL
Democratic filibusters hurting Senate progress
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Matt Seaholm:
- Democratic filibusters hurting Senate progress (November 17, 2003)
- State legislators accessible, ethical (January 21, 2004)
- Congressional Spending (December 8, 2003)
- Not worthy of an 'A' (January 19, 2004)
- Positives hard to come by in Dean's speech (October 8, 2003)
Related Stories:
- Politics as usual (July 3, 2003)
- Estrada filibuster excessive (March 10, 2003)
- Warning: Republicans to bring positive change (November 7, 2002)
- Fulfilling their constitutional duty (September 27, 2005)
- Playing politics quietly (November 13, 2003)
by Matt Seaholm
Monday, November 17, 2003
Democrats in the United States Senate are playing with fire. This last week we saw them make a mockery of the judicial nomination process. Starting at 6 p.m. Wednesday evening, the Senate held a 40-hour talk-a-thon where both sides could air their qualms about how the U.S. Justice System is in a state of disarray. The issue at hand was the confirmation of three judges to the federal appellate bench. This may not sound like too big of a deal, but what is happening to the process could lead to an absolute catastrophe in the future.
In the United States Constitution, the Senate is given the authority of “advice and consent” in the matter of executive appointments. What the Democrats are essentially doing is shifting the power of judicial nominations to the Senate rather than the President. They are doing this by requiring a super majority, or 60 votes. It has been historical precedent that if a nominee came out of committee, there would be a simple up-or-down vote on his or her confirmation. In the last year or so, we have been witness to Senate Democrats filibustering the nomination of six potential judges.
Why have the Democrats been filibustering these specific people? One reason they give is that these nominees are “too far out of the Mainstream.” However, Texas Supreme Court justice Priscilla Owen was elected to her seat by 83 percent of the Texas popular vote. Judge Carolyn Cuhl has the support of over 100 judges from across the political spectrum. Justice Janice Rogers-Brown was retained to serve by 76 percent of California voters. These examples seem far from out of the mainstream. The Democrats don’t want “biased” judges misinterpreting the law when it affects liberal special interests negatively. However, if a liberal judicial activist like Ruth Bader-Ginsburg were up for confirmation, they would have no problem giving their votes to her.
I also have to wonder, why would the Democrats pick this group of nominees? Owen, Cuhl and Rogers-Brown all unanimously received the American Bar Association rate of “well qualified.” Miguel Estrada, another casualty of the Democratic filibusters, is a Honduran-born immigrant who raised himself up by his bootstraps to get the Bar Association “gold-rating” and then be stopped because they didn’t feel he was worthy of serving on the D.C. Court of Appeals. Here are three women and a Latino being rejected by the party that claims to fight hard for women and minorities. This obstructionist policy is just plain wrong and, if nothing else, not very politically savvy.
Where does the U.S. Senate go from here? Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) has vowed that Republicans will oppose any future ultra-liberal justices. He said, “We’ll have our opportunity someday, and we’ll make sure there’s not another liberal judge — ever!” This will be extremely detrimental to an already-overworked federal judicial system. Both sides should claim some fault for what has happened, but the new precedent of filibustering a well-respected, highly qualified person simply because you aren’t in total agreement with some of his or her decisions is wrong.
Congress is wasting time over this. They had hoped to be out of Washington for winter recess by Nov. 1. That date flew by a several weeks ago and there is still work to be done. While the minority party is claiming that their time would be better spent on economic issues, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist puts it in these terms: “This year, [Democrats] have forced the Senate to spend an unprecedented amount of hours, equivalent to two full days, just on the act of voting for the president’s judicial nominees, 91 percent of whom were unanimously confirmed. The time spent on unanimous votes on judges this year is up 1,670 percent over the average for President Clinton’s judicial nominees.”
Before work can get done, senators on both sides should support a resolution that would put a strict limit on the use of the filibusters. Nowhere in the Constitution is that word mentioned, and I feel it prudent to keep it from becoming an every day occurrence. Let’s see who will be the real leaders for the Democratic Party and stop these political games.
Matt Seaholm (mjseaholm@wisc.edu) is a junior majoring in Political Science.
