Ending the filibuster
OK, I’ve decided that the filibuster, as it currently exists, is an abuse of procedural rules to force a substantive outcome. (And I’m talking about all filibusters, not just filibusters of judicial nominees.) Its purported justification is to ensure adequate debate, but at some point further debate becomes fruitless.
So here’s my proposed change to the filibuster: Allow each Senator unlimited time to speak either for or against the issue, but once they yield the floor, they’re done and are ineligible to have the floor yielded to them for more debate on the same issue.
The principle of allowing adequate debate is still served, as every opponent of a proposal will have had time to speak against it until they could speak no more. As a delaying tactic that can put pressure on the majority, it still works because opposing Senators could tie up the Senate for days or weeks. But after every opponent had spoken against a proposal, it would be voted on. (It would still require 60 votes to close off debate before every opponent had a chanced to speak.)
I think that many would be fine with this at the appellate judge level. But the current dust-up isn’t really about the judges who are now being held up. It’s about future Supreme Court nominees and the ability to filibuster them.
Frist’s proposal of 100 hours of debate per candidate would in effect kill the nominations of many of the judges on the current slate. The Senate isn’t going to spend 700 hours on 7 judges.
But the reason Reid turned that proposal down is because the Senate _could_ spend 100 hours on one judge. And this whole skirmish is all about the future fight on the horizon. Reid doesn’t want to inherit a weakened weapon, he wants full filibuster power to bring to bear against Bush’s Supreme Court nominee(s).
Kaimi, I believe you analysis of the current situation is probably right. (Of course, if Frist abolishes the filibuster for judicial nominees now, Reid loses the option to filibuster a SC nominee, when the higher public profile might have let a filibuster succeed. You’ve probably read Kaus’s take on that.) My proposal is addressed to the filibuster in general, though, not just the current situation.
Allowing opposing senators to debate as long as their individual endurances can stand would allow for more than the 100 hours Frist proposed. A minimum of 41 Senators are needed to oppose cloture. 100 hours would only be 2 hours and 26 minutes apiece, and any politician who can’t filibuster for longer than that shouldn’t even be in the Senate. Strom Thurmond filibustered for over 24 hours once. Averaging only 10 hours each, 41 senators could require over 400 hours of debate on a single proposal. In the likely event of a Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, 45 senators averaging 16 hours could force 720 hours of debate.
Basically, I’m saying that a determined minoity should be able to delay, a majority, but that in the end, a determined majority should be allowed to win.
For even more fun, you could require any Senator who wishes to vote on the proposal to be present during debate.