Civil Rights Activists Speak Out Against the Nuclear Option
"The filibuster, once used as a tool to thwart civil rights, now must be wielded as an instrument to protect them," write Maria Blanco, executive director of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, and Eva Paterson, president of the Equal Justice Society, on behalf of Californians for Fair and Independent Judges. Blanco and Paterson state that the threat of the nuclear option, "would remove the last remaining roadblock in [the] reshaping of the courts. Senate Democrats have deftly and judiciously used the filibuster to prevent the appointment of judges who believe in the protection of business at any cost, even at the expense of individual rights, civil rights and the environment."
Noting that Senate Democrats have blocked only 10 of President Bush's nominees, while Senate Republicans blocked 60 of President Clinton's nominees, Blanco and Paterson state:
[A]s civil-rights lawyers and activists who grew up during the civil-rights movement, we have no doubt that the Republican leadership's maneuvers in the Senate to remove the filibuster would ultimately dismantle our hard-won civil-rights laws and the federal judiciary that enforces them. The real target of the Republican overreach is not the filibuster; it is the federal courts' mandate and ability to act independently.
Written By:Jordan On April 27, 2005 10:15 AM Written By:jackson On April 27, 2005 10:28 AM
Um, Jordan, you do realize that the current rule requires 41% of Senators to implement a filibuster, so your proposed rule would make filibusters easier.
This is a case of "it takes two to tango."
I oppose the notion of removing the filibuster, and concede that the GOP has lost any sense of moderation, but I also oppose the Democrat's promise to filibuster these judicial candidates -- an unprecedented act that takes the judicial-nomination-wars farther than they've ever gone before and that provokes a crisis.
If and when we reach the constitutional mini-crisis of removing the filibuster, the Democrats can hardly stand back and say, "gee, we had no hand in provoking this crisis."
Also, unless you're pitching this stuff to the ignorant, why not just admit that the Senate has approved a lower percentage of Bush's circuit appointments than any president in history? Don't play cute with the stats. Belly up to the bar and admit what has to be admitted.
I'm no republican, but the filibuster is really not a democratic tool. Think the country would be better served if a hybrid filibuster were developed to replace the "any senator with a beef" doctrine. I'd say a filibuster would need a vote of 1/4 of the senate to be implemented.
Now that might not make a world of difference in present circumstances, but it would ensure that in the future rogue senators not take the entire floor hostage. Rather a sizeable minority. Anyone think this would speed things up?