Senate Filibuster Rule Change: Good idea or Bad?

The Senate Republicans, frustrated (and rightly so) about the Democrats blocking President Bush’s judicial nominees, are planning to change the filibuster rules so that Bush’s nominees will be guaranteed a vote on the Senate floor.

Sounds good, right? Well here is an article written by Michael E. Hammond, General Counsel, United States Senate Steering Committee, 1978-1989. The article came in an e-mail from Gun Owners of America (GOA).

GOA says that this is a bad idea, since eliminating the judicial filibuster would also eliminate the legislative filibuster. The problem GOA has with this is really two-fold.

First, many pieces of legislation that would have severely (in my opinion) restricted our Second Amendment rights failed to pass because of legislative filibuster, or the threat of a filibuster. By eliminating this Senate “tool”, they say, Dianne Feinstein, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Edward Kennedy and the rest of their anti-gun clan will be far better positioned to get legislation like the Clinton Gun Ban passed, either on its own, or by tacking it onto other “must pass” legislation.

Second, GOA says, looking at the Republican track record of judicial appointees doesn’t really guarantee anything. They point out the some of the more liberal justices on the bench were appointed by Republican presidents: John Paul Stevens (Ford), Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan), and David Souter (George H. W. Bush).

The article above is a good one, but long and heavy on Senate procedures – definitely not my forte. Nonetheless, it seems to me that eliminating filibusters for short term gain may in fact hurt us in the long run.

It seems that the important thing here is to forget changing the Senate rules and concentrate on winning a filibuster-proof majority in 2006.