As you know there is a big debate in congress right now about the use of the filibuster. Senate Democrats have been using the filibuster to block a very small number of President Bush's nominees to the courts; Senate Republicans are considering changing the rules to make it easier to bring an end to these filibusters and force a straight up and down vote. Senate Democrats don't like this policy, as it means that President Bush can nominate whoever he wants. Some Senate Republicans are uncomfortable with it as well, and everybody seems to think that this is a huge step for the Senate Majority Leader to take.
David Limbaugh, on the other hand, believes that it is no big deal.
He rests his argument on two premises. One is that the Senate has the right to change its own rules. There's nothing Constitutional about filibusters, they are simply permitted by the rules of the Senate. So why not change those rules.
The second is that filibustering President Bush's nominees is a little outside the purview of the Congress. Filibustering a tax bill would be fine, as tax bills are the purview of Congress. This argument doesn't fly for me; the Senate has the duty to approve Judicial Nominees. I don't see a difference between passing tax bills and reviewing Judicial Nominees. Certainly nobody would argue that the President shouldn't have the right to veto tax bills because such tax bills are the purview of congress.
Anyway my guess is that this nuclear option will be utilized. With as many as three seats opening on the Supreme Court, President Bush and Congressional Republicans can't take the chance of having their candidates vetoed by Senate Democrats.
No comments:
Post a Comment