Filibustering the Nuclear Option

Ensuring the existence of governmental checks and balances is of utmost importance for a healthy political system. To act otherwise would be to jeopardize that which our founding fathers instituted to prevent a dangerous accumulation of power. However, the country is presently poised to neglect past wisdom as Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. proposed to end the use of the filibuster on judicial nominations—the so-called “nuclear option.” And at stake is more than just a few judicial nominees; this would dramatically damage the foundations of our democracy, pulling partisanship and political extremism further to the forefront and destroying the compromise and moderation that have marked American politics for over two hundred years.

In a time of such political polarization, the filibuster is more necessary than ever. Though Republicans control the White House and the Capitol, our country is strikingly torn on the most glaring political issues currently confronting legislators. The filibuster is what keeps the voices of half the country in the political limelight. Sen. John W. Warner, R-Va. put it best when he told the New York Times “I just look at this institution as really the last bastion of protecting the rights of the minority, and we should be very careful before we try and make any changes.”

While the filibuster is not written into the Constitution, it is one of the key protections of the rights of the minority. The 60 percent super-majority that is required for cloture allows Senators to stop motions or legislation they feel is particularly alarming. Over the years, it has grown to be an important part of our political system that protects against political extremism.

Of course, pressuring this showdown over the filibuster are the ultraconservative nominations that President Bush has submitted to the Senate and that the Republican majority seems poised to approve. It seems that both parties now have a litmus test for their judicial nominees on the key issues. This sorry state of politics today, which must change for the good of our country, is preventing any form of compromise. Though Republicans claim benevolent intentions, their motives are transparent; in the words of Sen. Thomas R. Carper, D-Del. and Herb Kohl, D-Wis., who wrote a letter to the Republicans, they are “trying to erase the ‘checks and balances’ that exist in our representative democracy, turning the Senate into a rubber stamp for the president.”

Though eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominations is troubling in and of itself, in many ways, it is when facing these particularly important nominations that the filibuster is needed most.

For better or for worse, the federal judiciary has in the past 50 years taken on a new level of power and importance. They have the power to influence many key “wedge issues” which include abortion, gun control, and the separation of church and state among others. Given this tremendous mandate, it is essential that judicial nominees be somewhat moderate and representative of the wishes of the people. The elimination of the filibuster would allow for the nomination of judges at the extremes of the political and legal spectrum.

The nuclear option is further troubling because eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominations leads to a slippery slope towards eliminating the filibuster altogether. The destruction of this important check would let a party in control of the Congress and the Presidency—right now the Republicans—approve their agenda until the next election, no matter how controversial their views. Changes made by such a majority in even a two-year-period could drastically change the course of our country.

Given the harsh reality of today’s political climate, the Democrats are justified in their use of the filibuster in blocking judicial nominations. Extreme politics calls for extreme countermeasures. Only through the use of the filibuster can the Democrats attempt to force compromise and preserve some figment of moderation. That the tables could easily be turned on the Republicans, the elimination of the filibuster would be a dangerous step in the wrong direction for Democrats and Republicans alike.