Ground zero:
protections of the minority
By Molly Ivins. Star-Telegram.com
from the Web, April 30, 2005
AUSTIN -- I was all set to
write a column about the nuclear option -- the proposal to change the rules of
the Senate in order to get President Bush's most questionable judicial
appointments through -- when, lo, word came that there is no nuclear option
anymore. It is now called "the constitutional option."
Who changed it? Why, the Republican Party, of course. Having found
that "nuclear option" does not poll well, the Republicans simply decreed that
the rules change can no longer be described by that name.
Further, the Republican Party sent media operatives around to major news
organizations to inform them that anyone who fails to obey the new diktat on
usage will be demonstrating the dread "liberal bias."
I shall, of course, continue to refer to the proposed change as the nuclear
option out of a sense of obligation to freedom of speech.
Americans are notoriously bored by governmental process. If you want to
lose readers, just start a story with: "House Bill 787 was passed out of
subcommittee by a unanimous vote Tuesday." So convincing folks that
changing Senate Rule 22 is a danger to the republic is a challenge. But
this really is about protecting the rights of the minority in the Senate, the
right of every senator to filibuster.
In the old movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, the key scene is Jimmy Stewart's
filibuster on behalf of the people, which triumphantly wins over his fellow
senators. Under the changed rule, Mr. Smith would have to keep his mouth
shut.
Actually, no one filibusters anymore. In 1968, the Republicans led a
filibuster for four days to stop Abe Fortas from becoming chief justice of the
Supreme Court. If there's a serious threat of filibuster, the leaders
broker a deal.
But the Democrats are threatening to filibuster the same Bush judicial nominees
they busted in his first term, leaving the poor man with only a 95 percent
approval rate for his nominees.
Bush promptly renominated seven of these 10 dog judges (including Texas' own
Priscilla Owen), and now the Republicans are prepared to change the rules so
they can be cleared by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than winning the 60
votes needed to stop a filibuster.
Since what goes around comes around, some Republican senators are deeply
troubled about the prospect of being in the minority themselves someday without
the right to filibuster.
Further, in order to change Rule 22, the Senate also has to change the rules on
how to change the rules. At present, a two-thirds vote (67) is required to
change the rules. But under a procedural Nuc.
That is why the Founders assigned the Senate, not the House, to advise and
consent on federal nominations.
Sen. Robert Byrd, the resident scholar of all things senatorial, notes that even
though Rule 22 is only 86 years old, the tactic itself has been used since the
first Congress.
How God got involved in all this is a bit of a mystery. Some Christian
Dominionists decided that the Almighty is in favor of changing Rule 22.
Led by James Dobson, who runs Focus on the Family, they decided that 22 is "a
filibuster against the faithful," implying and in some cases stating that anyone
who opposes them is anti-Christian and probably working for Satan.
Last time I checked, no one had elected Dobson to decide who is a Christian and
who is not. It's a joke that the right-wingers claim that they're against
"judicial activists." What they want are judicial activists who agree with
them.
These people don't want to govern -- they want to rule.
Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate. 5777 W. Century
Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045.
|
