May 25, 2005

Filibuster

I think it is too soon to say who "won" in the great filibuster compromise of 2005. Like most things out of the US Senate, the only clear winners were US Senators. Senator McCain won additional media points, as if he needed them.

But the can was simply kicked down the road. It is good to get some judges a vote, but the Democrats can and will filibuster future nominations.

I will throw in my lot with my buddy, Larry Kudlow

Thank heavens the filibuster on judicial nominations has been taken care of, at least for now. Don’t get me wrong. It’s a key issue. All judicial nominees should be voted on in my view. And there are important business issues such as tort settlements and private property rights on the judicial agenda.

But the filibuster obsession has been sucking the oxygen out of other key issues that will impact the stock market and the economy, such as asbestos reform and medical malpractice lawsuits. Such as a budget-busting $295 billion highway bill. Such as a potential trade and currency war with China backed by Sen. Smoot Schumer and Sen. Hawley Graham. Does anyone remember the 1930s?


Normally, I'd be all for the idea of tying up the Legislative Branch with procedural busywork, but Kudlow is right, there are important issues to address.

Politics Posted by jk at May 25, 2005 12:47 PM

I wonder if Larry would be so willing to allow an "up or down vote" on the nomination of, say, Howard Dean to the Supreme Court given the advance knowledge that there were 51 numbskulls ready to vote 'aye.'

The fillibuster is America's Founder's defense against the tyranny of the majority. Even on judicial appointments it is a vital mechanism in our government. It's abolition should not be taken lightly.

Posted by: johngalt at May 25, 2005 2:11 PM

If we could trade Ginsberg for Dean, Larry and I would both be in.

I agree that supermajorities have their place in a constitutional structure; I do not think their application under "advice and consent" is warranted. Ann Althouse stated that Madison had suggested that a supermajority be required to block an Executive appointment.

You want to nominate folks, win elections.

Posted by: jk at May 25, 2005 5:11 PM | What do you think? [2]