Posted by Juan Non-Volokh:
<i>NYT</i> on Filibusters -- Then and Now:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_15-2005_05_21.shtml#1116428499
Today the NYT [1]editorializes against elimination of the judicial
filibuster. According to the Times' editorialists, the filibuster and
other modes of obstruction are "all part of the Senate's time-honored
deliberative role and of its protection of minority rights, which
Republican leaders would now desecrate in overreaching from their
majority perch."
In 1995, however, the NYT sang a different tune. In a January 1, 1995
editorial (posted on on NRO's Bench Memos [2]here), the NYT hailed
Senator Harkin's proposal to limit the filibuster.
For years Senate filibusters � when they weren't conjuring up
romantic images of Jimmy Stewart as Mr. Smith, passing out from
exhaustion on the Senate floor � consisted mainly of negative feats
of endurance. . . .
Once a rarely used tactic reserved for issues on which senators
held passionate convictions, the filibuster has become the tool of
the sore loser, dooming any measure that cannot command the 60
required votes.
In 1995, the NYT endorsed a proposal for successively lower
cloture-vote requirements to allow a determined majority to win the
day, while still preserving the minority's right to prolong debate and
voice its opposition. Senator Frist's [3]100-hours-of-debate proposal
would produce the same effect, yet the NYT blasted this as a
"No-Compromise Compromise" on May 3.
Senators of both parties have been inconsistent in their views of the
filibuster. That's what one expects from politicians. Is it too much
to expect greater consistency from the nation's one-time paper of
record?
References
1. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/18/opinion/18wed1.html
2. http://www.nationalreview.com/benchmemos/063468.asp
3. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_15-2005_05_21.shtml#1116333419
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
