Rich Lowry

The routine filibuster of judicial nominees is being portrayed by its defenders as one of the most hallowed traditions of American governance, up there with Robert?s Rules of Order, congressional committee hearings and Rose Garden bill-signing ceremonies. But this tradition dates from only 2003, when Democrats found themselves in the minority in the Senate and desperate to block Bush judicial nominees.

The judicial filibuster isn?t a tradition, but an innovation; not a function of checks and balances, but a perversion of them; not an outgrowth of the Constitution, but at best irrelevant to it.

The Senate has two broad traditions. It has respected the filibuster, which allows a minority of 41 senators to extend debate indefinitely and block a vote on a bill. But it has also brought ? in its ?advice and consent? role under the Constitution ? a president?s nominees to the floor for an up-or-down vote without filibusters. The Democrats? new tack of filibustering judicial nominees has created a clash of traditions: Either the traditional respect for the filibuster or advice and consent as traditionally practiced must give way.

Throughout the history of the Senate filibuster, it has usually applied to legislative business. The theory is that if the Senate wants to make its internal business more difficult by requiring 60 votes, so be it. But the president?s nominations are a different matter. They involve another branch of government. With limited exceptions, senators have avoided filibustering them because it was thought that the Senate?s advice-and-consent function compels it simply to approve or disapprove a nominee.

The Democrats have broken with this tradition. Through routine party-line filibusters that bottle up judicial nominees indefinitely, they are changing the Senate?s advice-and-consent function. They have created an entirely new minority veto for presidential nominees who otherwise have the votes to be approved by the Senate. This is not how the constitutional scheme was supposed to work, or has ever worked in the past. And no one has ever claimed otherwise ? until now.

As Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch has pointed out, there have been 109 Congresses in the history of the United States. The first 107 of them didn?t routinely filibuster judicial nominees. During the contentious fight over Clarence Thomas?s nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991, Democrats who were harshly opposed to him still refused to filibuster his nomination, even though they would have had the votes to do so. Democratic Sen. Patrick Leahy called a filibuster against Thomas ?nonsense? and a ?crazy idea,? declaring himself ?totally opposed to a filibuster.?


Rich Lowry

Rich Lowry is author of Legacy: Paying the Price for the Clinton Years .
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Rich Lowry's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.