This whole "is eliminating the filibuster good or bad" debate seems sort of silly.
As a matter of course, the filibuster deters the nomination of really extreme candidates who might otherwise make their way into a lifetime appointment, dooming us all to more opinions written by Kenendy. But the main nominating positions that the filibuster is used against are judges.
Hey! Wouldn't it be cool if congress could pass bills or something that limited the scope of the judiciary in other ways?
It seems like the natural consequence of allowing for more extreme judicial candidates through (the most ubiquitous practical end of taking the hammer to filibusters) is just going to be more bills like The Constitution Restoration Act.
If every four to eight years (or whatever the cycle is for going from one supposedly more enlightened party to the other) you have to deal with the other side's crazy, Gonzalez-like candidates striking down sane laws becuase of their personal political view, you suddenly have a fairly heavy incentive to limit their power. You know what getting rid of the filibuster might lead to? Less judicial activism.
Oh let us pray.
cranked out at 1:21 AM | |
|template © elementopia 2003|