Filibusters* and Senate rules:

From a news story about the Republicans pressing for a change in filibuster rules, we found in the message thread a link to a thoughtful essay on the topic at the American Enterprise Institute (yes, them). Excerpt:

The Framers knew all about filibusters and about the traditions of unlimited debate in parliaments and previous legislatures. They wrote a provision in Article II giving each house of Congress the sole power to set its own rules. They did not specify that those rules barred provisions to allow unlimited debate, or to have a higher number than a majority to shut off debate, either on a bill, a confirmation, or a rule itself. Therefore, it is clear that the Framers were willing to allow them in either house.

Remember that Rule XXII, the cloture rule that provides for an end to debate and a specified time for votes, does not raise the bar on passage of a bill or nomination from 50 to 60, or on a rules change from 50 to 67 or two-thirds of those present and voting. It lowers the bar from 100. There is no rule in the Senate--and there has not been one for nearly 200 years - that forces the previous question and an end to debate. Before Rule XXII was instituted in 1917, there was no way, if a single determined Senator took the floor and kept it, to force action on a bill or a nomination. The Senate operated under unlimited debate. It did so through the lifetimes of all the Framers. Not one objected to the way the Senate operated during this time as a violation of their constitutional intent.

and

The filibuster is basically a conservative instrument; it delays government action in order to overcome intense minority opposition and to build broader popular support. Do conservatives really think they will always be in charge, that impediments to government action will be to their detriment instead of to their advantage? Do constitutionalists really want to stretch the document beyond recognition for a short-term political gain, getting a few of their allies or buddies onto the bench?

From another posting in the thread: "... the judicial system is designed to be non-partisan. There should be neither Conservative or Liberal judges appointed to the bench. Since they are appointed for life it is important that they stay above of the partisan fight and be interpreters of the law, period." That's somewhat simplistic, but it gets to the heart of the matter. If a supermajority is (effectively) required for judicial nominations, then partisan judges are less likely get on the federal bench, and that's a good thing.

*  fil·i·bus·ter
Etymology: Spanish filibustero, literally, freebooter
Date: 1851
1 : an irregular military adventurer; specifically : an American engaged in fomenting insurrections in Latin America in the mid-19th century
2 a : the use of extreme dilatory tactics in an attempt to delay or prevent action especially in a legislative assembly.  b : an instance of this practice

posted by Quiddity at 6/24/2003 03:03:00 PM