The following is a Counterpoint column:
By Bill Wise
Regarding the May 8 guest column by Michael Kent Curtis supporting judicial filibusters [not posted]:
The gentleman gives the game away in the first sentence by referring to "the president's most politically extreme nominees."
Who decides what is politically extreme? Mr. Curtis? The Democratic minority members of the Senate?
Following the introduction, the author introduces Social Security, the environment, minimum wage, discrimination, anti-trust laws, workers' right to form a union, ponds used by migratory birds, protection of state employees, basic civil liberties, sex discrimination, treating soldiers as laboratory rats, and, of course, abortion.
Embedded in all of this is a screed against Justices Thomas and Scalia.
The writer, of course, has the right not to like, not to approve of, or to desire to eliminate these justices and/or their approach to constitutional interpretation.
But that is not what this issue is about.
The dictionary defines filibuster as "use of obstructionist tactics, especially prolonged speechmaking to delay legislative action."
For years the filibuster has served a purpose: that of allowing a senator to take the floor in regard to legislation of which he or she strongly approves or disapproves, and by holding forth as long as physically capable, reminding colleagues of the intensity of that concern.
That is not what is being proposed here. (Frankly, I wish the original intent of a Senate filibuster could be maintained.)
What the leadership of the Democratic Party proposes is to use this Senate rule to prevent a vote on the president's appointments by gaining the floor and bringing the legislative process to a halt, unless the president agrees to appoint only judges approved by the minority party.
This is power politics at its worst.
I do not care who did what in the past. Nor do I condone obstructionism by either party. So, please do not try to spin this by saying, "Well, they did this in the past, therefore, etc."
The president's appointments as given by constitutional authority deserve a vote -- whether advice and consent or refusal by the U.S. Senate -- after which you can criticize to your heart's content.
To subvert this process by some technical fiat and posit that it is justified because "I know best" is a contortion of democracy.
The writer lives in Greensboro.