“The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote: A veto override, a treaty, and a finding of guilt in an impeachment proceeding. Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote. The Founders debated the idea of requiring more than a majority. They concluded that putting such immense power into the hands of a minority ran squarely against the democratic principle. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock.”

Those words were uttered by Senate Minority leader, Tom Daschle, D-S.D. Sen. Daschle appears to disagree with Mr. Strong’s assertion that filibusters are a constitutional use of minority power.

Assertions of a 1968 filibuster are fallacious. Opponents of Justice Abe Fortas clearly stated they were not filibustering, only using adequate time to expose serious issues of his nomination to chief justice. Indeed, the Congressional record shows this bipartisan opposition would have defeated Fortas,’ nomination by a vote of 49-46. The fact that Justice Fortas later resigned from the bench after threat of impeachment is an interesting side note, indeed.

Supporters of the judicial filibusters state Bush’s confirmation statistics are 168-4. More interesting is how often judicial filibusters have been used, standing at 0-4.

This is correct; they have never before been used in judicial nomination circumstances. Judicial nominees go through committees, their credentials are scrutinized, and if they are deemed reputable, they are brought before the Senate for a majority vote.

Any comparisons between Bush nominations and other presidential nominations fail to state that previous failed nominations were either after votes on the Senate floor or inability to get out of committee, which is overcome by a simple majority vote of the Senate.

It is dishonest to imply that reliance on more than the American Bar Association’s ratings means nominees without credentials are being presented to the Senate. Each nominee in question possesses “qualified” or “well-qualified” ratings by the American Bar Association. Miguel Estrada was unanimously rated as “well-qualified.”

In United States v. Ballin (1892), the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld judicial nominees must only be confirmed by a majority vote. A minority of Democrats are disregarding the Supreme Court and the Constitution, denying the majority their constitutional right for a vote on qualified judicial nominees. As Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., stated, “Nominees deserve a vote. If our … colleagues don’t like them, vote against them. But don’t just sit on them — that is obstruction of justice.”

Chris Hansen

Senior

Materials Engineering