Opinion
Fillibuster needs to be protected
Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.
Also by Sarah Howard:
- UW aid looms over race (October 27, 2006)
- Overreaction to voting audit threatens turnout at polls (October 11, 2005)
- Congress must redirect focus (November 3, 2006)
- Rising energy costs pinch state schools (October 18, 2005)
- Baldwin set for success (November 10, 2006)
Sharing tools:
E-mail this article:
It’s not surprising that the term “filibuster” has a negative connotation in American politics. After all, it was first used in the United States to describe pirates’ naval blockades. It assumed its place in political vernacular in the mid-19th century when a congressman deemed his opponent’s delaying legislative tactics as “filibustering against the United States.” Since then it has been used to describe the long-winded political efforts from slavery advocate John C. Calhoun to Strom Thurmond, whose 24 hour 18 minute filibuster effort remains the longest in the Congressional record book.
Although obviously a long-standing Senate tool, the filibuster is often criticized for its absurdity. Few can justify the ridiculous extent of politicians’ efforts to exhaust and frustrate their colleagues into political compromise or submission. Some have read favorite homemade recipes aloud or shared an entire decade of childhood memories — not exactly important political material. On a more serious note, some political scientists claim that filibusters assail constitutional emphasis on majority decision-making. Currently, either party in the Senate can filibuster at will and only be stopped by a 60 Senator majority vote, which Republicans in Congress argue is excessive.
Because they are so close to this threshold yet still constrained by the threat of a filibuster, it is easy to see why the 55 Republicans in Congress denounce the filibuster as an “obstructionist tactic” the Democratic minority uses to over-extend its breadth of influence and stall legislative activity. The defeat of six Democratic senatorial candidates in 2004 may indicate that the American public agrees with them. However, this malcontent does not mean that the filibuster should be tossed into the Congressional dustbin and removed from the minority’s political arsenal. It is simply too essential for that.
The filibuster protects minority parties’ interests like no other senatorial device can and is typically the last line of defense against tyranny of the majority. By taking a long-winded stance against proposed legislation the minority can stall, if not defeat, legislation it deems impermissible. In some cases a minority voice is important enough to merit limitless expression — the current situation involving President Bush’s proposed appointments to the District Appeals Courts gives this claim context.
To the chagrin of most Republicans on Capitol Hill, the Democrats have peppered their outrage over Bush’s list of Appeals Courts nominees with threats of filibusters. At this point, how can anyone blame them? The Senate blocked the majority of these nominees during Bush’s first term and has taken legitimate offense to the President’s disregard of their earlier exercise of Congressional discretion. The judges’ records have not changed in the past two years, so why should the minority opinion? If senators felt that these judges were not worthy of appointment before, it makes sense that they would want to halt the following list of undesirable nominees two years later.
The controversial nominations to the District Appeals Courts include William Myers III, who has been labeled an anti-environmental extremist with a long lobbying record for the mining and cattle industries. Another, Terrence Boyle, has been criticized by higher courts for wrongly rejecting claims involving civil rights, disability rights and sex discrimination. Thomas Griffith — another suspicious nominee — unapologetically blamed his law firm’s staff for “allowing” him to practice law without licenses in two jurisdictions. A judge who disregards responsibilities and disrespects the rules seems to me to be a fair target for extreme Congressional deliberation. What’s more, appellate courts are the second highest judicial tier in America and judges sitting on them are often seen as potential appointees to the Supreme Court. With Chief Justice Rehnquist’s health in question, and the age of Justices O’Connor and Stevens contributing to inevitable vacancies in the not-so-distant future, these judicial appointments should not be taken lightly. In fact, they should be the subjects of heated and thorough debate.
Hopefully, Democrats and thoughtful Republicans will be up to the challenge of filibustering. Unfortunately, according the Associated Press, one of the reasons Senator Harry Reid was chosen as Minority leader was that he promised to “oppose (Bush) where necessary, compromise where possible and avoid the obstructionist label.” If this means shying away from the use of the filibuster, there may be political trouble ahead. Democrats cannot let the obstructionist labeling discourage them from invoking this minority tool that is as old as American politics itself. The filibuster is one of the few remaining ways that Congressional minorities can cause a political stir and challenge the strength of unified legislative and executive branches.
Ultimately, appointing capable judges in a timely fashion is important, but far less important than ensuring that these appointees abide by Constitutional guidelines and rule fairly. If the democratic principles of justice and fairness are at stake, a little filibustering won’t hurt the political process — in fact, it’s truly worth the wait.
Sarah Howard (smhoward@wisc.edu) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
25 Comments | Leave a comment
Leave a comment
Herald Blogs
The Beat Goes On
Fans of Waits will not be disappointed
Muckrakers
Report: Barrett to make decision by the end of the week
Extra Points
Top Classified Ads (view all)
SPRING SUBLET: 1 bedroom in 2 bedroom at the Aberdeen. Rent negotiable. Email arkramer@wisc.edu
GENTLE WOMEN...THROUGH the lens of Douglas J. Nesbit, newly released book now available for holiday gifts! www.gentlewomen.us
This article is a joke. Filibusters are not a "longstanding senate tool" for blocking judges.
It is being used by the democrats because they know the judiciary is their last stand. Nobody will vote for their ideas when they run for congress or president, so they just try to hold on to their activist judges the best they can.
And sarah, don't kid yourself, you would be writing the complete opposite opinion piece if these were republican attempts to block democrat judges. Your blatant political partisanship is completely transparent.
"Your blatant political partisanship is completely transparent."
As opposed to your neutral stance I suppose? Or should I say "fair and balanced"?
Go get come more Kool-aid freak. Oh, and have you enlisted yet chickenhawk?
Filibusters are not a "longstanding senate tool" for blocking judges.
This is a fact, but then the Democrats have always been innovators in this area. They also invented "Borking". They were mighty put out when the conservatives copied the borking technique - they thought that they were the only ones who should be able to use it.
As the Democrats play with their newly invented "filibuster tool for blocking judges" they might consider that there is the long-shot possibility that they may again hold both the Presidency and a Senate majority. I'm sure that if this happens they will be angry when this tool is used against them.
"...have you enlisted yet chickenhawk?"
This old red herring? What a moron! The USA lost Viet Nam at home, not on the battlefeild. It turns out to be very important for those at home to support the troops in the field by fighting against those who advocate appeasement, surrender and isolationism.
"Go get come more Kool-aid freak. Oh, and have you enlisted yet chickenhawk?"
Don't bother responding to arguments, just call names. you are a chickenhawk and a kool aid freak for not coming up with any justifications for your position.
besides, librulls can't use the "kool-aid" joke...that is explicitly deserving of librulls themselves...stop piggy-backing.
yeah! that's like a conservative trying to call a liberal, "hitler." it just doesn't work. i mean, killing 40 million unborn "babies," and approving of state sponsored genocide against disabled folks, while oozing anti-semitism and scapegoatism during a secular revolution has NOTHING to do with nazis...right? oh shoot. what was i saying? gosh i'm thirsty for a prepackaged fruity concoction.
here's a study from the wash. post about politics on campuses...apparently there are even more conservative profs than i thought! too bad!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8427-2005Mar28.html?nav=rss_politics
I think we all need to watch some British parliment on late night c-span. You don't need fillibusters when you are calling each other nasty things. But fillibusters are great things for either side. I think the conservatives are going to be very angry when they wake up one day and they are on the minority again and they screwed themselves over. Their short sightedness sinced assuming the majority is quite startling and they need to realize at some point the ebb and flow of politics they will again be the minority.
Yeah, filibustering is terrible! It's only done by Democrats who oppose perfectly legitimate candidates for the federal judiciary.
Oops! Repubs do it more than Democrats! For less principled reasons!
Shit, there goes their integrity...
not for judges though. oops.
So why is fillibustering over judges different than your regular fillibuster?
dunno, out of respect for the president probably (which dems have none)...just hasn't been done.
"besides, librulls can't use the "kool-aid" joke...that is explicitly deserving of librulls themselves...stop piggy-backing."
"liberals", not "librulls", you idiot! God, I sure hope you aren't a college student! Even a grade school kid would've spelled it right!
uh, "librull" was a joke...more kool aid now? apparently i have to put "sic." all over the place. now go kill babies and disabled people. while you're at it, side up with france, terrorists, schoolchildren and commies and illegals. i'm off to get some euphoria by starving myself...don't i look purty? sic.
did that person really think that dude/chick was accidentally misspelling liberal? what a moron?! and nice point about schoolchildren spelling it correctly! duh, they're taught by their teachers to BE liberals! not to mention, the natural tendency for kids to be lefties..."no more war!"
that guy was hostile, but he has good points.
"dunno, out of respect for the president probably (which dems have none)...just hasn't been done."
If it's a question of respect for the President, shouldn't that run both ways? Do you really think the Republicans had any respect for the president when Clinton was in office?
Anyone who supports a war that they don't enlist for is a chickenhawk. You are willing to send other people to die for something you will not die for. You repugs are hypocrites and make me sick.
nonsense. as a marine, i take offense to that statement. each person has a talent and duty. whether it be working to provide for his family or providing leadership in a youth org. soldiers believe themselves to have another sense of duty. most of them feel that they were born to it. and they expect others to follow their passions. that is what makes this nation what it is. a brave few provided with the utmost, protects a free and vibrant society. which in turn provides the armed forces with the finances and ideas to protect the their way of life. besides, breaking the support for the war down to hawks and partisanship is silly because both parties have engaged in wars. for instance, the war on iraq was theorized by clinton in 1998. clinton used force unilaterally and was only questioned by "repugs" about his wankah. really, only one other war divided this nation in a partisan fashion such as this, and the dems were responsible for losing the war at home during vietnam...which led to losing the war abroad.
uh, apparently a marine is pissed...
as far as respect for clinton...at least they didn't care about his multiple un-UN sanctioned attacks! and they didn't object to his judges...which is what this WHOLE post is supposed to be about. they just objected to his perjuring.
"and they didn't object to his judges...which is what this WHOLE post is supposed to be about."
Bullshit! They objected to any judge Clinton submitted for their consideration who was to the left of Fred Phelps. Apparently, Democratic appointees are only acceptable to Republican Congresscritters if they're former KKK members.
"Anyone who supports a war that they don't enlist for is a chickenhawk. You are willing to send other people to die for something you will not die for. You repugs are hypocrites and make me sick."
What about me? I supported the war, but I didn't enlist. I was too busy rehabilitating an arm that was shattered thanks to a drunken driver. And I'm a Democrat, you pissant little bitch. Am I a chickenhawk now?
You're not a Democrat, and you don't have a broken arm. Get a life and stop making up fake posts on a college newspaper website.
You imply Republicans wish to remove all filibusters. But they are not proposing removal of the filibuster from anything except the 'advise and consent' required of the Senate by the Constitution for judges nominated by the President; it would seem appropriate that the Senate not be allowed to stall endlessly using a tactic never anticipated by authors of the Constitution.
Further you say, "The Senate blocked the majority of these nominees during Bush's first term and has taken legitimate offense to the President's disregard of their earlier exercise of Congressional discretion." which presumes it is legitimate under the Constitution to delay forever it's clear intent to allow a vote. Justice delayed is justice denied, (in this case a double meaning).