OT: Will Kerry Flip-flop again?

Here's another opportunity for Kerry to "change his mind" when the situation
doesn't promote his political agenda...

April 21, 2005, 12:18 p.m.
Filibuster Rules: Then & Now
In 1995, 19 Democrats voted to eliminate all filibusters.

by Sean Rushton
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D., Conn.) on Wednesday held a press conference to
criticize Republican efforts to restore Senate tradition to the judicial
confirmation process. But another proposal regarding Senate rules somehow
escaped his ire, and has received scant attention despite the New York Times
editorial board's recently saying it would go "even further than the
'nuclear option' in eliminating the power of the filibuster."

That proposal would amend Senate rules to end all filibusters, not just
those against judicial nominees. The proposal's sponsor said that "the
filibuster rules are unconstitutional" and was quoted as saying "the
filibuster is nothing short of legislative piracy." He announced his intent
to end all filibusters with an unambiguous statement: "We cannot allow the
filibuster to bring Congress to a grinding halt. So today I start a drive to
do away with a dinosaur - the filibuster rule."

Despite its support by several senior senators, you haven't heard about this
proposal in the MoveOn.org ads blasting Senate Republicans. And you
probably haven't heard about it from Senate Democrats who now give their
full-throated support to filibusters against President Bush's nominees. Why?
Because the proposal wasn't offered by Republicans; it was introduced in
1995 by senior Democrats, including Sens. Lieberman and Tom Harkin (D.,
Iowa). When it came to a vote, 19 Democrats, including leading blue-state
senators such as Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, supported the measure.

Unlike the attempts by Democrats to end all filibusters, the effort by
Senate Republicans is limited to the judicial confirmation process. As
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday: "If I must act to bring
fairness back to the judicial nomination process, I will not act in any way
to impact the rights of colleagues when it comes to legislation."

Despite efforts by special-interest groups on the left and their champions
in the Senate, there is nothing sacrosanct about the filibuster of nominees-
regardless of the Mr. Smith Goes to Washington imagery Democrats now conjure
in support of filibuster rules, the same rules they once called "legislative
piracy." Our founders did not use filibusters. In fact, for the first
several Congresses (from 1789 to 1806), a majority of senators always had
the power to bring debate to a close (cloture) by a majority vote.

Rules guaranteeing up-or-down majority votes and abolishing the filibuster
in various contexts are commonplace in modern Congresses as well. In fact,
there are at least 26 laws on the books today abrogating the filibuster. For
example:

You cannot filibuster a federal budget resolution (Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974).
You cannot filibuster a resolution authorizing the use of force (War Powers
Resolution).
You cannot filibuster international trade agreements (Bipartisan Trade
Promotion Authority Act of 2002).
And as the minority leader, Sen. Harry Reid (D., Nev.), well knows, you
cannot filibuster legislation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982.

The vote on the Harkin proposal was not the only effort to reform Senate
rules. It is important to note that in 1975 the Senate voted three times in
support of the power of a Senate majority under Article I of the
Constitution to change the rules. Those precedents forced the Senate to act
and led to a major change in the cloture rule.

So the restoration of Senate rules and traditions for judicial nominees
enjoys both historical support and Senate precedent. But the constitutional
power of a majority of Senators to strengthen, improve, and reform Senate
rules and procedures is also expressly stated in the Constitution, and was
unanimously endorsed by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Ballin
<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=144&invol=1>.

In Ballin, the Court unanimously held that unless the Constitution
expressly provides for a supermajority vote, the constitutional rule is
majority vote. For example, the Constitution clearly states that each house
of Congress "may determine the Rules of its Proceedings" (Article I, Section
5).

The truth is that throughout our nation's more than 200-year history, the
constitutional precedent and Senate tradition for confirming judges has been
majority rule. Senators should have the right to restore that tradition. And
Republican efforts to do so with the "Byrd Option" - named for Sen. Robert
Byrd (D., W. Va.), who pioneered the procedure when he served as Senate
majority leader - should not be demonized, particularly by those Senate
Democrats who so tenaciously argued against filibusters under previous
presidents.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) said recently that the current attempt to
restore Senate rules on judicial nominations would turn the Senate into a
"banana republic." Given their attempts to end all filibusters in the past,
at least 19 Democrats should take issue with that assertion.
- Sean Rushton is executive director of the Committee for Justice
<http://committeeforjustice.org/>.


--
C Guynn

"I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution
which granted a right to Congress
of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their
constituents...." --James Madison

"Chris Guynn" <chris.guynn@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:MY9ae.1107$yd7.816@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com ...

> Here's another opportunity for Kerry to "change his mind" when the
situation
> doesn't promote his political agenda...

And the silence was deafening.