Filibusters: Then and Now

[MDM4AU 336]

Filibusters: Then and Now

Letter to the Editor

New York Times

March 10, 2005

To the Editor:

"The Senate on the Brink" (editorial, March 6) supports the "historic role of the filibuster," which is a curious position for a newspaper that 10 years ago said filibusters were "the tool of the sore loser" and should be eliminated ("Time to Retire the Filibuster," editorial, Jan. 1, 1995).

Federal judicial appointments have certainly been controversial, but surely all Americans can agree that the rules for confirming judges should be the same regardless of which party has a majority.

Now you praise the filibuster as a "time-honored Senate procedure." In 1995, when Bill Clinton was president, you called it "an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose."

You disparage the Republicans' view that 51 votes should be enough for judicial confirmation. Yet the 51-vote rule is a consistent Senate tradition. By calling for an end to filibusters, the Senate is simply contemplating restoring its traditions by traditional methods you disparage as "nuclear," even though they were once endorsed by such leading Democrats as Senators Edward M. Kennedy, Charles E. Schumer and Robert C. Byrd.

John Cornyn

U.S. Senator from Texas

Washington, March 7, 2005

[Piglet 0]

Yeah, and someday the Democrats will have a Senate majority again, and Cornyn will be the one calling it a time honored procedure while Teddy will demand its abolition in the name of "fairness".

For the last six years of Slick Willie's administration, the Republicans didn't bother filibustering. They just refused to bring Clinton's nominees up for a vote at all. the whole thing's about power. Ethics don't even enter into a politician's mind, ever.