The "Nuclear" Option

oldstyleliberal has been trying to figure out how he feels about the looming "nuclear" threat in the U.S. Senate — i.e., the action contemplated by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist to change Senate rules and allow ending filibusters by simple majority votes when the topic at hand is a federal judicial appointment. Right now, such filibusters, like all other types, require a supermajority of 60 senators to end them.

Some of the bench nominations of the Bush White House are currently threatened with being held up by a coordinated Democratic filibuster. There are 44 Democrats (and one Independent) in the Senate, so a united front on their part could put the kibosh on any particular Bush nomination.

Especially, a nomination (not now but perhaps very soon) to the U.S. Supreme Court, which under the right circumstances could eventually reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision legalizing abortion. Since oldstyleliberal is pro-choice, he naturally leans against changing the filibuster rule. But one should always be leery of one's own biases when something truly important beyond those biases is at stake.

That's why oldstyleliberal was happy to run across an article in the Perspective section of the Sunday Baltimore Sun this A.M. In "Ex-senators wary of 'nuclear' threat," Sun staffers polled several respected ex-senators on their thoughts about Bill Frist's "nuclear" option.

One, Clifford Hansen, a Repbulican senator from Wyoming from 1967 to 1978, gave oldstyleliberal a sound, principled reason, other than his support for Roe, for wanting to keep the Senate rules as they are:

"Being a Republican, we were the minority party, and I suspect there are some similarities between our situation then and those that the Democrats find themselves in today. I am sure that it would have concerned me if there were limits on the filibuster. When I was in the Senate, the Democrats were in control, and we had made a lot of friends with the Democratic Party, and I realized then that if I were going to get anything done, I had to reach out and establish some real friendships with members on the other side."

In other words, the nation is best served when the majority party cannot impose its will alone, without horse-trading with the minority — and vice versa. That's why a filibuster that can be kept alive by 41 senators until the horse-trading takes place makes good patriotic sense.

So count oldstyleliberal as being against changing the Senate filibuster rule vis-à-vis judicial nominees. Senators one and all, just say no to the "nuclear" threat!