Posted by Juan Non-Volokh: <i>NYT</i> on Filibusters -- Continued: http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_15-2005_05_21.shtml#1116456417
[1]Stone Court thinks there is no inconsistency in the two NYT editorials I cite [2]below. Certainly, one could oppose the filibuster on principle, but still object to changing the filibuster rule by a simple majority vote, but this is not the Times' position. As the excerpts below should illustrate -- and the full text of the editorials makes clear -- the gray lady has indeed changed her editorial position on the merit of filibusters. In 1995, filibusters were "negative feats of endurance" and "the tool of the sore loser." Today, filibusters are "part of the Senate's time-honored deliberative role and of its protection of minority rights" and "a necessary weapon." So while one could be both anti-filibuster and anti-nuclear option, that is not the NYT's editorial position. In a related vein, one reader wonders why the current NYT editorial board should be bound in perpetuity to prior editorial positions -- after all, it's not the [3]St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Fair enough, the Times can change its mind. But we're not talking about some long ago position -- this was 1995. Moreover, insofar as the NYT seeks to be a voice of principle, rather than partisan political interest, I think it is reasonable to expect a reasonable amount of consistency and frank acknowledgement when its views change. References 1. http://thurgood.blogspot.com/2005_05_01_thurgood_archive.html#111643330993674188 2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_05_15-2005_05_21.shtml#1116428499 3. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000920570 _______________________________________________ Volokh mailing list [email protected] http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
