Viva La Difference!

What a difference a few years (and an party in power) makes!

That was then.

The filibuster, which allows 41 senators to delay action indefinitely, is a rough instrument that should be used with caution. But its existence goes to the center of the peculiar but effective form of government America cherishes.

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.  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.

This is now.

In a 52-to-48 vote that substantially altered the balance of power in Washington, the Senate changed its most infuriating rule and effectively ended the filibuster on executive and judicial appointments. From now on, if any senator tries to filibuster a presidential nominee, that filibuster can be stopped with a simple majority, not the 60-vote requirement of the past. That means a return to the democratic process of giving nominees an up-or-down vote, allowing them to be either confirmed or rejected by a simple majority.

This vote was long overdue. “I have waited 18 years for this moment,” said Senator Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa.

Democrats made the filibuster change with a simple-majority vote, which Republicans insisted was a violation of the rules. There is ample precedent for this kind of change, though it should be used judiciously. Today’s vote was an appropriate use of that power, and it was necessary to turn the Senate back into a functioning legislative body.

Is eight years long enough to be "long overdue"?  I guess so, when your editorial page epitomizes the heights of hypocrisy.

 

Comments

[Chris Pisarra]

You don't think it might have something to do with the fact that this partisan minority block had filibustered more presidential appointees than all previous senates combined?

[Peg]

All I know, Chris, is that 8 years ago, all of these Democrats thought what they passed yesterday was terrible.

Guess they were wrong then - eh?

[Chris Pisarra]

Eight years ago we didn't have an obstructionist minority party using the filibuster to stop all progress, to deny each and every appointment, to bring the government to a complete halt and hold their breath until they turned blue if they didn't get what they wanted. Now we do.

Again, the radical right has reaped what it has sown, and is striving to deny responsibility for the consequences of its own actions.

[Peg]

Chris, whether you are correct about the current Republicans or not, the issues that the Democrats raised when the tables were turned are still in effect. Frankly, in the long run I think that this action will harm the Democrats - and - given their actions over recent years, good for our nation, IMHO.