"Filibuster Deal Puts Democrats In a Bind: Pact May Hinder Efforts to Block High Court Nominee":
The pact, signed by seven Democrats and seven Republicans, says a judicial nominee will be filibustered only under "extraordinary circumstances." Key members of the group said yesterday that a nominee's philosophical views cannot amount to "extraordinary circumstances" and that therefore a filibuster can be justified only on questions of personal ethics or character.
Seriously, does anyone actually believe any of the 14 Senators are going to feel bound in any way by the deal? It has been obvious from the beginning that "extraordinary circumstances" is an empty term, and there is little doubt that any of the filibuster compromisers could easily cook up some reason to find "extraordinary circumstances."
As for whether "philosophical views" constitute "extraordinary circumstances," remember that those who attacked Bork simply redefined their philosophical objections as questions about his temperament. And Estrada was filibustered because of his unwillingness to respond to unreasonable and overreaching document requests.
The only silver lining in all this is that the filibuster deal itself was an unconstitutional abdication of the Senate's advice and consent obligation in the first place, so if this provides the triggering event for its demise, so much the better.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Filibuster Deal:
- More on Filibuster Deal Fall-Out:
I have never been able to comprehend, though, the argument that a filibuster is a constitutional abdication of duty. It seems as if a filibuster is just one method of not consenting. And John McGinnis makes a good argument for why the opportunity for filibuster of USSC justices seems like wise policy.
I fail to see what's unconstitutional about a group of senators participating in deciding how that body of elected government will operate. The deal that was reached, and I agree that it will be tested soon enough, is eminently lawful and entirely proper. I disagree entirely with the argument that there is anything unlawful about Senate filibusters against presidential nominations. I just don't see it.
Say what everybody means: if you are a liberal, an extremist is someone who would overturn Roe v. Wade. If you are a conservative, an extremist is someone who would not overturn Roe v. Wade. There is no other issue about which so many people care enough to fight like this.
Yours,
Wince
How about an analogy. My child is given a consent form to participate in an activity. I am not obligated to turn it back in and say "no." I can delay indefinitely or simply not take any action, and consent is withheld, so my child does not participate (the judge does not take office).
I am not saying that the 51 parents cannot override the rule through their own nuclear option. I agree they can. I'm just saying that the PTA group should have the choice of requiring a supermajority for any field trip, if that is the rule that they wish.
Our President, Representatives and Senators have a Constitutional duty to promote the general welfare and to work within the Constitution. They should consciously avoid signing, enforcing and passing unconstitutional laws.
I do not think the phrase "the filibuster deal itself was an unconstitutional abdication of the Senate's advice and consent obligation in the first place" is unjustifable, but I certainly don't think we have the political will to do anything more than complain about it. After all, we all fail in our duty to abide by the Constitution at some time or another.
Yours,
Wince