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 ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science.
