Frist, let me fili-bust-er your lip!
Well it looks like it's that time again. What time is that you say? It's time for me
to attempt to wake folks up to what is going on in the political arena. You see, the
other day I asked 3 people what they thought of the "nuclear option" and later the
filibuster protocol. One thought there was some nuclear weapons crisis brewing that
he'd missed and the other two gave me a look of utter confusion. None of the three
had any idea what was/is taking place and that if it occurs would set a precedent and
undo a couple hundred years of U.S. Senate protocol and some would say jurisprudence
itself. So, here it is in the most basic terms. A filibuster is a maneuver that the
minority party can take to block a judicial nominee or piece of legislature. The
filibuster is not, however, foolproof, as it can be terminated through a super-majority
(60-40) vote to end the debate and subsequently allow the simple-majority (51-49, or
even 50-50 with the V.P. breaking the tie) vote on the matter at hand.
So, this is the way the rules of the Senate have worked for over 200 years--until now
that is. The republicans, or rather many of the ones farther right of center, want all
of President Bush's nominees to receive "an up or down vote." This sounds simple and
fair enough on the surface, however, because they are in the majority, this really
means they want none contested--they want carte blanche with his nominees. They want to
change the rule--sometimes referred to as parliamentary procedure--and because this
apparently can be done with a simple-majority vote they have the numbers to do it.
Does it strike you odd that a simple-majority vote can be used to change a procedure
(the filibuster) that normally cannot be broken except with a super-majority? Good, it
should. Even if this were a good move for the country, it would smack of unfairness
and just plain old illogical thinking. The greater problem of course is that the
option to filibuster is in place, and has been in place for over 200 years of Senate
history, to protect the minority party, and to break this rule is akin to tossing aside
the balance of power. This is especially dangerous when one party controls the U.S.
House of Representatives, the Senate, the White House, and for all intents and
purposes, the Supreme Court. The filibuster has not been used willy-nilly and 97% of
Bush's nominees have been appointed. Who else but a spoiled brat would cry foul with
such a winning percentage! So don't be fooled by the idiomatic mantra of "every
nominee deserves an up or down vote." This is a transparent, albeit at times highly
effective, marketing or sales pitch approach to politics that is trying to brain-wash
people into thinking, "hey, that sounds fair." Too many people were fooled during the
2004 election (not in 2000 though; remember, more voters wanted Al Gore to be the
president). Don't let this happen with the filibuster/judicial nominee, or Social
Security for that matter.
