A real filibuster

IN DUNCAN CURRIE'S article about overcoming Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees ("A New Weapon in the Judges' War," Dec. 6), he discusses several "nuclear" options for breaking the impasse. Nowhere, however, have I seen a discussion of using what I would call the "conventional option," the one envisioned by the framers of our Constitution, which would be to make the Democrats conduct a real filibuster.

Up until now, Senate majority leader Bill Frist and company have let the Democrats merely sign a pledge to filibuster a nominee. The nomination is then tabled, the Senate moves on, and the obstructionists get off easy. At no point have the Democrats been forced to make the endless floor speeches to prevent the up-or-down vote. To my knowledge, we have not seen a real filibuster since the civil rights era.

Forcing a real filibuster would accomplish several things. It would clearly paint the Democrats as obstructionists. It could sort moderates such as Bingaman, Conrad, the two Nelsons, Carper, and Dayton out from the pack. And if Frist were to schedule the seven blocked nominees as the first seven votes of the new session, and then force Democrats to filibuster one after the other, future votes on Supreme Court justices, tax reform, and Social Security reform would go more smoothly.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

And besides, if this resulted in the Senate accomplishing nothing for a few months, would we really be worse off?

DALE JOHNSON

Ashburn, VA

COPYRIGHT 2005 News America Incorporated
COPYRIGHT 2005 Gale Group