The Dartmouth Beacon

YES:

Bruce Gago '05
The recent filibuster deal does not bode well for the Republican Party, particularly upon first glance. Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) had worked hard to gather the votes to pass a bill ending the use of the judicial filibuster, and the vast majority of Republicans were aboard in ending an increasingly abused Senate tradition. Then suddenly a coalition of 14 moderate Democrats and Republicans hashed out one of those smoke-filled back room deals that characterize so much of 19th century politics. The document drafted by the senators assures that the Democrats will reserve the use of judicial filibusters only for “extraordinary” circumstances, while Republicans agree to back down on their efforts to ban judicial filibusters.

Initially, this seems like a raw deal for the GOP. And it is to some extent: for now, the Senate will be mired in gridlock whenever the President nominates a judge that the Democrats don’t like. In the short term, these fourteen senators have presented an obstacle to efficiency in legislation. But there are a few reasons that the long-term effect of the deal will in fact help Republicans.

First, no group is more betrayed by the deal than conservative activists. Blog after blog highlights the tremendous disappointment that conservatives feel. They are angry. Fortunately, this group is perhaps the most politically active demographic cohort in the U.S. In 2006, deal drafters Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Lincoln Chafee (R-RI) are up for re-election—and you can be sure that these are the three Senate primary races that conservative activists will most actively target. If three of the GOP’s more liberal senators were to be replaced with solid conservatives, you can be assured that the long-term prospects of this deal will benefit the GOP. Furthermore, if John McCain (another signatory) were to attempt to garner the Republican nomination for President in 2008, conservative activists will spend every last ounce of strength making sure that he loses it. One of the main proponents of the filibuster deal, McCain has not only failed to prove his conservative credentials yet again but has also betrayed Republicans everywhere. It is a well-established fact that only the most polarized party followers vote in primaries; this deal consequently bodes poorly for McCain’s presidential chances—virtually assuring another solidly conservative Republican nominee for President.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, as part of the deal the Republicans reserve the right to renew the battle if they deem that the Democrats are acting in “bad faith.” DeWine has assured that he will vote for a judicial filibuster ban if he feels that the Democrats are reneging. If the President nominates a Supreme Court candidate soon (as he is expected to do) and the Democrats threaten to filibuster, the battle over judicial filibusters will resume—and end sweetly in the Republican’s favor.

NO:

Joe Malchow '08
Seven moderate Republicans, fawning in the limelight of a media that loves to discuss “The Big Tent,” have in one fell swoop erased their party’s hard work and determination by granting the minority carte blanche on every nomination.

There are plenty of other forthcoming nominations—judicial and otherwise—which the Democrats will try to filibuster. It doesn’t matter whether the circumstances are extraordinary or not; in every case and at every time the Democrats will be able to paint the picture that the GOP is nominating right-wing loonies (a fallacy seemingly confirmed by this deal) and Democrats can say that they need to resort to this new Bastion of the Republic to save it. They won’t get any pressure from the media to use the “filibuster” responsibly. And Republicans will easily be accused of “backing out of a broad bipartisan deal heroically enacted to preserve our nation” or some such tripe, when they enact the nuclear option.

Ten years ago, the New York Times issued an editorial saying, “Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of the sore loser,” and added, “This relentless abuse of a time-honored Senate tradition so disgusted Senator Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, that he is now willing to forgo easy retribution and drastically limit the filibuster. Hooray for him.”

If it sounds like an endorsement of the nuclear option, that’s because it is. The filibuster debate has been inflated and mischaracterized from the start. For one, Democrats do not intend to filibuster. The filibuster is indeed a time-honored institution. When a nominee is brought before onto the floor, unlimited debate is permitted. Traditionally, this debate only ended when there either was nothing more to say or a Cloture vote could gain 60 yeas, forcing an end to the debate. So if the minority party was strongly opposed to something, they would filibuster and the majority could do nothing unless it had sixty votes. But an obscure change in the Senate Rules allows the minority party to filibuster without actually engaging in continuous speech. It allows, quite literally, the minority leader to go to the President of the Senate and say, “Mr. President, I request an indefinite extension of debate.” And everyone would go home; the bill or nomination would be tabled.

In sum: the filibuster was an institution. It is now a painless technicality that bumps up passage in the Senate from a simple majority to 60 votes. The “nuclear option” doesn’t destroy the filibuster. It restores it. The Deal misses this point entirely, and cedes undue power to a catty and abusive minority, while also setting the stage for further unchecked abuse of the filibuster by Democrats. This is a temporary solution to the current judicial crisis, but the stage is set for the problem to resurge, and when it does the GOP won’t be holding a trump card.