A few words have been added to the vocabulary of many Americans as a result of feuding over judicial nominations seen in the Senate over the last two years. These three words taken from the Congressional vernacular have graced the lips of citizens across the country — many people now know a cloture vote requires a supermajority to end a filibuster.

Much to the dismay of angry Republicans, the Democrats of the U.S. Senate have successfully filibustered judicial nominations made by our illustrious President Bush.

The act of filibustering encompasses one action: talking something to death. This is exactly what the Democrats managed to do.

A cloture vote is used to end a filibuster and requires an “up or down” vote on the issue at hand.

A simple majority does not constitute a victory when it comes to the cloture vote. In the Senate, a supermajority of 60 votes is needed.

A counterprotest was staged by the Republicans, who called for a 30-hour debate. Nearly 40 hours after the start of the debate, the Senate was no closer to arriving at a compromise.

Both sides claimed victory when all was said and done. Democrats were successful in blocking nominations. However, Republicans believe the dirty tactics of their competition were exposed to the rest of the nation.

If you believe democracy to be a simple majority-rule system, then the use of a filibuster is undemocratic. On the other hand, if you believe democracy to be a system intended to give the minority a voice, then a filibuster fits the bill in some instances. How perfect is it for this procedure to take place in a division of government specifically created to give the minority a voice?

Republicans and many talking heads are making this out to be more of a historic event then it actually is. Filibusters have been used many times over the years and are growing in use, according to a survey published by Bookings Review. While they have primarily been used for non-judicial appointments, a Supreme Court nomination was filibustered in 1968. However, there is one difference between this nomination blocking and the current filibustering — 1968’s filibuster was bipartisan.

The fact that Supreme Court appointee Abe Fortas was blocked because of his progressive views on civil liberties by Republicans and southern Democrats is an interesting side note, indeed.

Some may argue Democrats are overstepping their bounds by overusing this controversial action. Judging lawmakers in this manner ignores the fact they have already confirmed no less than 168 of Bush’s nominees. It also ignores the fact that Democrats allowed John Ashcroft to be U.S. Attorney General. Didn’t he lose an election to a deceased opponent?

Also, I don’t care if it takes a handful or a hundred filibusters to stop possible ideologues from obtaining high-ranking judicial seats. Our elected Democrats must do what is necessary to make sure such people do not succeed in their efforts.

Is it so hard to see the problem with some of the nominees being filibustered?

Janice Rogers Brown makes judgment “in prayer and quiet study of the Bible.”

Carolyn Kuhl has been attacked for being an enemy of the consumer, laborer, environmentalist and pro-choice activist.

According to a fellow Texas Supreme Court Justice, to follow Priscilla Owen’s line of thought “would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

Granted, the man who spoke this, who now sits comfortably as Bush’s lawyer, was referring to a specific case, but one must wonder how many other cases this accusation could be applied to.

With so many other highly qualified candidates, how can we justify taking a risk and promoting someone like Owen to the second highest court in the country?

It is also interesting to note that Owen is the protege of Karl Rove — this is the same man purported to be the reason President Bush is sitting comfortably in the White House today.

When Bush nominated these justices, he knew full well what the response would be. In his own response to the Democratic filibuster, President Bush accused Democrats of “playing politics with their nominations.”

Perhaps the president doesn’t remember revoking the American Bar Association’s “semi-official” role in the screening of new judges. Neither side washes clean in this debate.