The following excerpt was taken from an
editorial in the March 29, 2005 edition of The New York Times
The Senate, of all places, should be sensitive to the fact that this large
and diverse country has never believed in government by an unrestrained
majority rule. Its composition is a repudiation of the very idea that the
largest number of votes always wins out. The members from places like Rhode
Island, Maine
or Iowa know that their
constituents are given a far larger say than people from New
York simply by virtue of the fact that each state has
two votes, regardless of population. Indeed, as a recent New Yorker article
pointed out, the Democratic senators who have blocked that handful of judicial
nominees actually represent substantially more Americans than the Republican
majority that wants to see them passed.While the filibuster has not traditionally been used to stop judicial confirmations, it seems to us this is a matter in which it's most important that a large minority of senators has a limited right of veto. Once confirmed, judges can serve for life and will remain on the bench long after Mr. Bush leaves the White House. And there are few responsibilities given to the executive and the legislature that are more important than choosing the members of the third co-equal branch of government. The Senate has an obligation to do everything in its power to ensure the integrity of the process.
A decade ago, this page expressed support for tactics that would have gone even further than the "nuclear option" in eliminating the power of the filibuster. At the time, we had vivid memories of the difficulty that Senate Republicans had given much of Bill Clinton's early agenda. But we were still wrong. To see the filibuster fully, it's obviously a good idea to have to live on both sides of it. We hope acknowledging our own error may remind some wavering Republican senators that someday they, too, will be on the other side and in need of all the protections the Senate rules can provide.
No comments:
Post a Comment