Sunday, August 03, 2003

It is the prerogative of U.S. senators to stall legislative proceedings with a parliamentary tactic called the filibuster, unlimited debate that can be cut off under current rules by a minimum of 60 votes.

Both Democrats and Republicans invoked the filibuster with increasing frequency in the second half of the 20th century. But as frustrating as a filibuster can be -- the late Strom Thurmond holds the record for gabbing 24 hours and 18 minutes to block civil rights legislation -- it is a legitimate privilege, though one that should not be employed lightly.

That is why we oppose initiatives by Senate Republicans to make it easier to end a filibuster, a maneuver inspired by Democrats' refusal to cut off debate on several of President Bush's judicial nominations, most recently his choice of Alabama Attorney General William Pryor Jr. for the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

With no Democrats present, the Senate Rules and Administration Committee recently voted 10-0 to approve a resolution that would ultimately allow a simple majority of the chamber to clear a presidential nominee for confirmation. That is an extreme remedy that should, and likely will, go nowhere.

Filibusters -- and threatened filibusters -- can serve the useful purpose of inclining Mr. Bush to sprinkle some moderate judicial appointees among more conservative ones. The Pryor nomination is a particularly egregious one. The Arkansas attorney general, who has called the Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion an "abomination," is the sort of extreme choice that gives filibusters a good name.

That said, Democrats need to be careful not to dull the weapon of the filibuster by using it so often against nominees to appeals courts -- courts that must follow Supreme Court precedent -- that Mr. Bush would be able to portray a filibuster against an extreme Supreme Court nominee as more of the same knee-jerk negativism.

Meanwhile, Senate Republicans who take the long view will hope the filibuster rules stay as they are. If the majority became the minority party, it would be Democrats, not Republicans, who would benefit from the ability to cut off debate by a simple majority.

Correction/Clarification: (Published Aug. 4, 2003) An editorial in yesterday's editions about Senate filibusters gave the wrong home state for federal appeals court nominee William Pryor Jr. He is from Alabama.

E-mail this story   Print this story