Jewish World Review May 13, 2003 / 11 Iyar, 5763

Terry Eastland

Eastland
JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports


It may take another election to change filibuster rules


http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | It is fitting that former Texas Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice John Cornyn sits on the Senate Judiciary Committee and is chairman of its subcommittee on the Constitution. Last week, Mr. Cornyn presided over its first hearing, which he framed as: "Judicial Nominations, Filibusters and the Constitution: When a Majority Is Denied Its Right to Consent."

When Mr. Cornyn was elected to the Senate last fall, he couldn't have expected that he would be holding such a hearing. In 2001 and 2002, President Bush and a Senate controlled (by one vote) by Democrats often fought over judicial nominations. With the Democrats losing the Senate in the midterm elections, Republicans assumed the confirmation process would become much less contentious.

That is, Republicans assumed that the Judiciary Committee they now control would approve nominees and that floor votes then would be scheduled - and duly held. That last assumption has been proved wrong. Senate rules require not a bare majority but 60 votes to cut off debate and thus permit a vote. With a working minority of 49 senators, the Democrats have the power to vote against ending debate - to filibuster - and so they have.

They have blocked votes on the nominations of Miguel Estrada (to the appeals court in the District of Columbia) and Priscilla Owen (to the appeals court for Texas, Mississippi and Louisiana). "We didn't anticipate that the Democrats would do such an unprecedented thing," Mr. Cornyn said in an interview.

Mr. Cornyn believes the filibuster is unconstitutional when used to deny a vote on a nomination that has the support of a Senate majority, as do both the Estrada and Owen nominations. Yet as one might imagine, the idea that "a majority" has "a right to consent" is to some Democrats as the red cape is to a bull. At last week's hearing, Sens. Russell Feingold and Charles Schumer were dumbfounded that anyone would assert such a right and contended that the filibuster is the only means by which they can try to affect the choices Mr. Bush makes for the bench.

Mr. Cornyn is too good a lawyer to contend that what (he thinks) is unconstitutional should be litigated or that the only place to vindicate a right must be in a court of law. He is unwilling to join those who suggest that the president, nominees Estrada or Owen, or even some Republican senators file a lawsuit against filibustering Democrats. Such a lawsuit, he is right to say, would be thrown out and the issue left - as it should be - for the Senate to decide through changes in its rules.

Mr. Cornyn says he "leans" in favor of amending the 60-vote requirement for cutting off debate to make clear it doesn't apply to nominations. Yet he is acutely aware that no changes in Senate rules, including the amendment he has in mind, may be made except by a two-thirds vote.

That fact has led some Republicans to suggest parliamentary maneuvers by which a majority of the Senate would declare the two-thirds requirement unconstitutional. "That would be virgin territory for us to get into," says Mr. Cornyn, who wisely doesn't seem eager to enter it.

The odds would appear long that the Republicans actually will succeed in changing the rules. The likelihood is that the Democrats will retain their power to filibuster. In which case, the question they will face is how often they can exercise it without hurting their prospects for regaining the Senate in 2004.

Mr. Cornyn says "it may take an intervening election" that yields a larger Republican majority before "a majority" finally has the power to exercise "its right to consent." He is right to think an election could resolve the issue. And, indeed, it is an election that should resolve the issue.

Appreciate this writer's work? Why not sign-up for JWR's daily update. It's free. Just click here.




JWR contributor Terry Eastland is is publisher of The Weekly Standard.Comment by clicking here.

05/07/03: Paige works to improve education from inside out
04/30/03: Iraqis have choice to make regarding religious freedom
04/16/03: Is it acceptable for an education secretary to state a personal preference for religious schooling?
04/08/03: University officials must put academics ahead of athletics
04/02/03: Support for our soldiers means support for their orders
03/27/03: 'Free Iraqi Forces' underscore Bush's sincerity
03/18/03: Dems misunderstand judge's job
03/13/03: Justices show right restraint in ruling on anti-crime measures
03/05/03: America's imperial intentions
02/25/03: The weakness of Dems' stated reason for their filibuster makes you wonder whether it is the real reason
02/19/03: Administration fine-tunes religious rights in public education
02/12/03: France and Germany need to be reminded of the necessity of a strong, even predominant America
02/06/03: Judiciary's 'balance' -- or lack of it -- is our doing
01/29/03: The child who almost wasn't
01/21/03: President decides to punt on affirmative action case
01/14/03: Bush's faith has influenced his conduct in public office
01/07/03: Dems need ideas, not more microphones
12/17/02: Gray Lady should learn that times have changed
12/10/02: Will High Court be guilty of activism?
12/03/02: The missing facts in news accounts of Saudi Princess Haifa's putative 'charity'
11/26/02: Americans don't have to be worried about Big Brother
11/19/02: Texas' reputation for flamboyance may be revised
11/11/02: Bush now can repair confirmation system
11/05/02: Dems shouldn't believe too strongly in history
10/30/02: Snipers had lots of motives
10/23/02: No one should be shut out of marketplace of ideas
10/15/02: Open hearings that could imperil the nation
10/08/02: Debating the clear and present danger
10/01/02: A great awakening in China?
09/25/02: Abortion, again? The settled but still unsettling law of Roe v. Wade
09/18/02: A relevant presidency--and irrelevant U.N?
09/10/02: Ashcroft's obtuse judicial statement
09/04/02: The Education Gadfly stings again
08/28/02: So then let the president declare war
08/21/02: Will Bush finally 'fix' affirmative action once and for all?
08/06/02: President must take up cause of Egyptian democracy warrior
07/31/02: With each war, civil liberties are curtailed less

© 2002, Terry Eastland