The Political Spectrum

"Right now, the only check on President Bush is the Democrats' ability to voice their concern in the Senate," said Reid, D-Nev. "If Republicans roll back our rights in this chamber, there will be no check on their power. The radical, right wing will be free to pursue any agenda they want."

This is Harry Reid, commenting on the GOP attempt to end these judicial filibusters.

Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats are engaged in an attempt to alter the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. If you do not believe this to be the case, then read his next comment:

"The goal of the Republican leadership and their allies in the White House is to pave the way for a Supreme Court nominee who would only need 50 votes for confirmation rather than 60," the number of senators needed to maintain a filibuster, Reid said.

Gee Senator Reid, that does sure seem unfair of the Republicans. After all, it says right there in the U.S. Constitution that court appointments must be confirmed by 3/5 of the Senate. It says it right there in Article . . . hmmm, I can't seem to find it. It must be there somewhere. What's that you say? There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that mandates justices be confirmed by a super-majority? You mean Harry Reid and his fellow Democrats have created an artificial threshold for judicial nominations?

I must ask Senator Reid: why not 67 votes to confirm? Why 67, you ask? That is the number of votes that used to be required to end a filibuster until there was a rule change.

A rule change? In the US Senate? You mean to tell me that the Senate is allowed to change the rules? Is not the filibuster enshrined in the Constitution?

What's that you say? The filibuster is an extra-constititional device that is no more a part of the constitutional mandate of the Senate than its decision to not electronically file its financial reports?

The idea that the end of the judicial filibuster signifies a rollback of minority rights in the Senate is farcical. Set aside the fact that as long as wimpy RINO's such as John McCain and Lincoln Chafee are roaming the halls there is little chance that the President will be able to ram his agenda through Congress without a fight. The fact remains that the filibuster is not the mechanism through which the Senate retains its strong influence in the balance of power. The constitutional design of our federal government provides enough checks on the government so that the filibuster is little more than a tool for the minority to grab far too much power. If the Senate - and for that matter the House - is unable or unwilling to check the powers of the presidency, then the problem lies with the individual members of Congress who have abdicated their responsibility in matters which they truly do have a constitutional role. Congress has let the presidency grow in stature practically to the point where Congress has become something of a joke. And yet in the one area where the President is decreed greater power it is here that the Senate rears its ugly head in a manner that breaks the bounds of its constitutionally delegated powers. Advice and consent does not mean 2/3 or 3/5 or whatever arbitrary fraction you want to imagine.

Senator Reid's distortion of the historical legacy would be laughable were it not for the Republican leadership's failure thus far to do anything meaningful. I hope that their efforts today do not prove to be fruitless.