LA Times Reminds Us: The Filibuster Is Sleazy

Today is the beginning of NO Day (Nuclear Option Day) and efforts are still underway to head off a showdown over the right of the minority to use the filibuster against judicial nominees. Some see a political train wreck and some (on both sides) seek just that, for different reasons.

But the L.A. Times, in an editorial, is seemingly shouting “Enough already!” and literally declaring: “Nuke It Already.”

In this editorial (which most likely is written by the ever-witty and independent Michael Kinsley), the paper notes the efforts of centrists to find a compromise on the issue…then reminds readers of the filibuster’s history:

We don’t share these activists’ enthusiasm for the White House judicial nominees triggering the current showdown. But we do believe that nominees are entitled to a vote on the floor of the Senate. The filibuster, an arcane if venerable parliamentary tactic that empowers a minority of 41 senators to block a vote, goes above and beyond those checks on majority power legitimately written into the Constitution.

The filibuster is an inherently reactionary instrument most famously used to block civil rights legislation for a generation. Democratic senators themselves decried the filibuster not long ago when they were in the majority and President Clinton’s judicial nominees were being blocked.

Frist is on the verge of doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. He plans to bring the nomination of Priscilla R. Owen, a Texas Supreme Court justice, before the full Senate today. Democrats have blocked her nomination in the past, and Frist is now threatening to force a change in rules to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees. That would be a great triumph for the American people. It would be an even greater triumph if the Senate were to destroy the filibuster altogether.

And then this:

Alas, we shouldn’t uncork the champagne bottles just yet. Because the filibuster is at heart a conservative’s weapon, and because Frist is essentially asking senators (regardless of their ideology) to relinquish some of their individual power, we’re fearful that the centrists may yet prevail. That would be one judicious compromise that would deny the American people a worthwhile victory.

So there’s no twist ending…but not quite what you’d expect. And, most importantly, it’s a factual reminder of the filibuster’s history..which gets forgotten each time each side seeks to use it (and supports it) or halt it (and opposes it).