The San Jose Mercury News actually printed a thorough, balanced (yes, they still have to do balanced)
analysis of the filibuster debate this morning. They even put a snippet of it on the front page. They covered most of the major points, including blue slips. However, they did miss a few, so I'm taking it upon myself to address them. I'd be grateful if people can alert me to any facts I have wrong before I send this (which will be later today). I doubt they'll print my letter, since after Tuesday this will all be old news (plus it's way too long -- if anyone has a suggestion how I could cut it down w/o eviscerating it, I'd love to hear it!), but I have to make the effort. My letter on the flip.
Editors,
Thank you for printing one of the most thorough analyses of the filibuster debate that I have yet seen in a major newspaper. However, I wish to address a few misconceptions.
First, you state that Senator Hatch changed the rules to require both senators from a nominee's home state to file a "blue slip" in order to block the nominee. Initially Senator Hatch did make that change, but then later changed the rules again to make blue slip objections merely advisory. Without that second rule change, the nomination of Janice Rodgers Brown from California would surely have disappeared quietly. There was also a rule known as Rule IV that a nomination required at least one minority vote in order to proceed to the Senate floor. Senator Hatch abolished this rule also, despite it having been used by Republicans against many of Clinton's nominees.
Second, you characterize the Democratic strategy to filibuster 10 Bush nominees as a major escalation of partisan strife without mentioning that 95% of Bush's nominees have been accepted without complaint by the Democrats. It was President Bush who caused the escalation by renominating these 10 judges who had previously been rejected on ideological grounds, forcing the Democrats to either give in or filibuster en masse.
Third, you state that the American Bar Association has favorably vetted the 10 nominees under consideration, where, in actuality, both Janice Rogers Brown and William Myers received the Q/NQ partial "not qualified" rating.
Fourth, you neglect to mention that changing the rules of the Senate to eliminate the filibuster actually requires a two-thirds vote. The only way that the Republicans can accomplish their aim is by overruling the Senate parliamentarian and declaring the filibuster of judicial nominations unconstitutional, and then voting to table any Democratic objections. Regardless of what they might like to see happen, surely most Senate Republicans, given their own history, cannot honestly believe the judicial filibuster unconstitutional.
Finally, you correctly point out that the Democrats deplored the filibuster when it was used against them. Those in charge will inevitably resist rules that limit their power, but checks on that power are precisely how we curtail abuse and corruption on both sides. If the filibuster is defeated, Republicans may one day see the chickens coming home to roost, and will rue this day.