The Judicial Filibuster Rule
In the next few days, the leadership in the Senate appears ready to attempt a procedural motion that would end the filibuster rule as it applies to judicial confirmations. The members of the non-partisan Centrist Coalition -- representing members in over thirty states -- believe this would be a serious mistake and a step back for our democracy.
First, this would erode the valuable Senate tradition of cautious deliberation. This tradition is reinforced by the ability of a substantial minority to prevent items from passing on the Senate floor. It's particularly appropriate for judicial appointments, because it can prevent ideological judges with an extreme liberal or conservative agenda from being confirmed to lifelong terms.
Second, it shifts the balance of power toward the presidency and Congress and away from the judiciary. If presidents can nominate judges without weighing the possibility of opposition from a reasonable Senate minority, the White House has a much freer hand in remaking the judiciary along ideological lines. The judiciary becomes more like the other two branches of government -- more nakedly partisan, and less objectively deliberative.
Third, we fear this so-called "nuclear option" will accelerate the latest troubling trend toward political influence over the judiciary. It picked up momentum during the Terri Schiavo controversy, when Congress and the president tried to overrule decisions made by the courts. When that effort failed, a number of our most prominent elected officials began advocating more fundamental forms of judicial interference, such as impeaching judges.
There is an air of extremism in our contemporary political environment. We're hearing phrases like "a judicial war on faith" and "judicial tyranny" from the religious right. They're labeling opponents "anti-Christian", even though most people on both sides of the issue are Christians. And they're talking about impeaching even moderate Republican appointees like Justice Anthony Kennedy.
We're troubled not so much with the above rhetoric, which could be heard from certain individuals and groups at any point over the last 20 years, but by its spread into the highest levels of government -- particularly recent actions and comments by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist and House Majority Leader Tom DeLay.
The moderate majority of Americans -- and centrist senators of both parties -- need to step up and speak out against this effort to silence dissent and pack our courts with ideological extremists. Especially in these polarized political times, we need our courts to be independent and to retain the sense of balance upon which justice is based.
