It's my ball!

So, the Republicans won the White House and control of both houses of Congress... and still can't get their way? What does a political party have to do to make everything always go the way they want it to?

The Republican majority in the Senate is contemplating making an historic change in the way that the Senate does business. As it is right now, a vote on giving consent on a federal judicial nomination from the President can be held up by the time-honored tradition of the filibuster. In order to stop a filibuster, a "super-majority" of 60 (out of 100) Senators must vote to stop it and force the vote. The proposal (called the "nuclear option") is to change the rules so that a simple majority (51 out of 100, or 50 plus the tie-breaking vote of the Vice President) can stop a filibuster. This would be very convenient, since the Republicans currently hold 55 seats in the Senate, which is more than 50, but less than 60.

The argument against the Democrats use of the filibuster is that using it to prevent an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee is unprecedented and is not in accordance with the customs and traditions of the US Senate.

While this is not strictly true(CNN.com says "Democrats point to Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas, who was blocked from becoming chief justice in what the Senate historian's Web site calls 'the first filibuster in Senate history on a Supreme Court nomination.' The attempt to force a vote on his nomination drew fewer than 50 votes. They also say at least two of Clinton's lower court judicial nominees were filibustered for years by Republicans, although they were ultimately confirmed."), there is some truth behind it. In the past, nominees have been stopped using other "customs and traditions" of the Senate. The vacant seats that Bush has named nominees for are only vacant now because Clinton nominees couldn't get confirmed for them when he was President. These nominations were not stopped by filibusters. Rather, they were killed in the Senate judiciary committee and never even came up for votes on the Senate floor. That's right, the Senate Judiciary committee has the power to prevent an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee. There are eighteen Senators on the Judiciary committee. Eighteen. A majority of this group would be ten. Ten is less than forty-one. A lot less. Thirty-one less. Why is that important?

The main argument put forth by the Republican majority is that an "up-or-down" vote on a judicial nominee should not be able to be blocked by a minority (forty-one) of Senators. Yet Clinton's nominations for these posts were blocked by the Judiciary committee, themselves a minority of eighteen, with a majority vote in that body consisting of ten votes. Where was the outrage when "up-or-down" votes were blocked on Clinton's nominees by this much smaller number of Senators?

It should be obvious that the real source of outrage on the part of the Republican majority is not a zealous desire to protect the customs and traditions of the venerable and august body that is the US Senate. Nor is it even for the preservation of "majority rule", since they were perfectly content to allow the fate of Clinton's nominees rest in the hands of a much smaller minority than the minority of forty-one that can maintain a filibuster.

Here's the real issue: The Republicans finally have control of the white house and both houses of congress. It stands to reason that they can do anything they want... but they can't. And it's driving them crazy! Sorry, guys, but that's the way it works, and there's good reason for it.

The US government is composed of three branches that constitute a system of "checks and balances." The whole reason that the Constitution gives the Senate the role of advising and consenting to the President's nominations is the prevent any one person (or small group of persons) from taking over the whole course of the government against the will and wishes of the mainstream of American citizens. Likewise, the Presidential veto is a check against the Senate, requiring that if the President isn't in agreement with a piece of legislation, a "super-majority" (2/3 in this case) of Senators need to agree to overrule him.

Why these "super-majorities?" Well, in a two-party system like ours, at any given time, it is almost certain that one party or other will hold a simple majority (except in those rare cases where it is exactly split 50/50). This would give whichever party happened to have a slim majority authority to implement the most radical programs and agendas, and in the cases where the President is of the same party as the majority, to appoint the most radical and "activist" judges to the federal bench. The requirement of a super-majority is a safeguard against this, since it almost always requires that programs, agendas and judges have a broad enough appeal for at least some members of both parties need to approve of them for them to be implemented, passed or confirmed.

But the gambit the Republicans are pursuing is very dangerous. They're proposing changing the rules so that a simple majority can push almost any judicial nomination through, and it sets a compelling precedent for not eliminating the requirement for super-majorities on other nominations. Bush won the White House with less than a "super-majority" of votes in 2000 (He didn't even have a simple majority of popular votes, but that doesn't mean that more than half of Americans voted against him. Less than half of Americans voted at all!). The 2004 vote was not a landslide by any means, either. The last 5 years have been filled with some of the most bitter partisan political fighting we've seen in a long time, with both sides taking stands that seem to have less to do with the merits of the issues and more on being against what "they" are supporting. A future where a simple-majority has carte-blanche to push through whatever they want to will continue to cater to the extremes at both ends of the political spectrum over and against the wishes and best interest of the vast majority of centrist America.

I can think of two compelling arguments against changing the rules of the Senate. The first is the specter of a Republican President and a Republican controlled congress pushing through the most radical right-wing agenda without any means to "check" or "balance" them. The second argument is the specter of a Democratic President and a Democratic controlled congress pushing through the most radical left-wing agenda without any means to "check" or "balance" them. Getting rid of "super-majority" clauses makes both of these scary options likely future realities. We're better off with government being limited to what action can get at least some bi-partisan support. It's possible that we'll end up with a few very good programs and ideas being stopped. It's highly probably that we'll avoid a whole lot of bad programs and ideas being pushed through, also. My fear of the damage our government (controlled by either party) could inflict if given almost unlimited power far outweighs any regrets over the loss of some small handful of good that could have been affected which failed to gain bi-partisan support.

The Republican leadership is not just setting themselves up to be able to push through their agenda. They're setting our country up to be a violent see-saw of extremism, going left to right so haphazardly as to tear our nation apart.

If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer to keep the filibuster.

- "Dad used to say the only causes worth fighting for were the lost causes."