On Nov. 2, the voters gave President Bush a clear mandate to govern for four more years. And, while many debate what exactly that mandate actually is, one is readily apparent: do not obstruct qualified judicial nominees. Senate Democrats, led by minority leader and obstructionist-in-chief Tom Daschle went down in defeat, and Republicans picked up four seats.
During President Bush's first term, Democrats consistently blocked many qualified judicial nominees from even getting a vote on the Senate floor. Senate Democrats took advantage of every parliamentary maneuver available, including the filibuster, to obstruct President Bush's judicial nominations even for extremely qualified candidates such as Priscilla Owens and Miguel A. Estrada. Following the revelation of questions about Chief Justice William Rehnquist's health, the issue is now on the front burner again.
The judicial filibuster is bad public policy, it turned out to be bad politics for Democrats as well, but it is not unconstitutional.
Republicans, including myself, like the idea of requiring a supermajority vote in Congress to raise taxes, which I think is prudent public policy. In 1993, Senate Republicans used the filibuster to defeat the ill-conceived Clinton "stimulus package," which contained the infamous BTU tax. Isn't it ironic, though, that some of us are now even suggesting that the filibuster is "unconstitutional" when it is used to thwart a vote on a judicial nominee?
The filibuster rules of the Senate do not need to be changed, they simply need to be honored in practice rather than merely in the abstract. Under Majority Leader Mike Mansfield, a "tracking" system devised by then Majority Whip Robert Byrd was put into place. Tracking allows the majority leader - with unanimous consent or the agreement by the minority leader - to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business.
Before the introduction of tracking, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. With a two-track system, the Senate simply puts aside the filibustered measure and moves on to other legislation. The result of this tracking system has been an explosion in the threat and use of filibusters. During the 19th century there were only 23 filibusters. Between 1970 and 1994 there have been 191 filibusters.
As Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., acknowledges, today it's the threat of a filibuster that matters. Mr. Byrd calls it a "casual, gentlemanly, good-guy filibuster. ... Everybody goes home and gets a good night's sleep, and everybody protects everybody else." Mr. Byrd may have more accurately portrayed this pseudo-filibuster as obstructionism on the cheap.
I Was A Woman In The Marine Corps In the Mid-70s. Hillary Clinton’s Story Doesn’t Add Up | Susan Hutchison