I've written before about the school voucher program that's been proposed for Washington DC, and as of today it's one step closer to reality. Obviously, I'm in favor of the idea; vouchers are possibly the only way to reinvigorate our public education system, because they put it in in competition with private education. Competition forces everyone to improve, and along with some (hopefully minimal) regulations, I expect the program to be a resounding success.
That is, if the Senate passes it. You see, the Congress has direct control over what goes on in the Capital, and although the House has just passed a version of the bill, the Democrats in the Senate are threatening a filibuster. Surprisingly, there are at least two prominent Democrat Senators who are in favor of the program:
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the measure Thursday by a party-line 16 to 12 vote, though Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., a longtime voucher opponent, joined Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., in crossing over and supporting the provision.It's hardly a "party-line vote" when a quarter of the Democrats on the committee break ranks, but whatever.Senate Democrats hope to kill the measure on the Senate floor with a filibuster.
The Democrats' filibuster fall-back is getting to be quite annoying, isn't it? More than that, there is some brewing controversy over the constitutionality of the filibuster used as a device to permanently block majority rule in the Senate, particularly in executive contexts, such as approving Presidential nominees.
This is not to say that all filibusters raise constitutional questions. There is a long history of their use in the legislative context, and they can serve a legitimate purpose by not foreclosing debate on legislation prematurely. But in the executive context, when presidential appointments are at issue, filibustering appellate nominees is an unprecedented, though still not necessarily unconstitutional, step. If employed merely to guarantee a reasonable and limited period of debate before proceeding to an up or down vote, a brief filibuster might pass constitutional muster. But in the cases of Estrada and Owen, when the filibuster is being used not to debate, but to kill their nominations by denying the majority its right to consent to them, serious constitutional issues arise.Yes, the Constitution permits the Senate to set its own rules. But that is hardly a blank check entitling the Senate to amend the Appointments Clause by raising the confirmation bar from simple majority to super majority, to aggrandize power by upsetting the balance between the congressional and the executive branches, and to threaten the independence of the third branch, the federal judiciary. The conclusion is inescapable. Whenever Senate Democrats, a minority of the body, filibuster judicial nominations, obstruct an up or down vote, and deny the majority its right to consent to the appointments, they subvert the Constitution.
Update:
I'm not sure why I thought 2 was a quarter of 14...?
Ok...a 16 to 12 vote...there are 15 republicans and 14 democrats on the committee...two democrats vote with the republicans, and I guess one republican doesn't vote...so 2 of the 14 democrats vote with the republicans and all the republicans vote one way...so you're saying that a quarter of the democrats broke ranks, so either 2 out of 14 is a quarter, or a bunch of democrats and republicans broke ranks and they just were not mentioned...or you're wrong. But whatever.
Anyway, consenting to the appointment of a judge is a debate with a vote just like anything else that comes through the senate. The vote cannot happen until the debate ends. If that means a filibuster, so be it. Either AMEND the constitution to eliminate the filibuster, or shut up. There are no constitutional issues here, other than maybe "the constitution isn't helping me get the judges I like appointed", which last I checked isn't a function of the constitution.
I don't see why I need to either amend the Constitution or shut up. There are quite a lot of other people who also think the filibuster is an unconstitutional practice.
See here for more information on the perspective that the Democrats are breaking Senate precedent by filibustering nominees who would be confirmed if brought to a vote.
I wouldn't have as much problem with the filibuster process if the majority Republicans would actually force the Democrats to hold a real filibuster, rather than merely threaten to.
On the other hand, in general I'm in favor of anything that prevents the government from making more laws. That's why I see a difference between the legislative and executive contexts described in the quote above.
republicans hate the idea of a minority speaking against them Well, it's time they realize that their way of thinking is not the dominant way of looking at things, for once, let the minority speak up, and bring the republican's old fashioned state of mind into the future through the filibusters! ANyways, they are not unconstitutional at all, if the republicans would increase their general knowledge of it, they wold realize so.
claudia: I think the last election proved that, at least for now, the Republican way of thinking is dominant. The reason people say filibusters are unconstitutional is because according to the Constitution, the Senate is ruled by majority vote; filibusters require 60 votes to stop.