Have you called your senators to state your opinion regarding the disgusting use of the filibuster for ideological purposes? I hope so. As Charles Colson says in his commentary today, it is a travesty upon our constitution and it needs to go.
Why don’t those who are filibustering have the courage to allow a vote? Because they won’t get their way, that’s why? They are like two-year-olds throwing temper tantrums on the senate floor. If they can’t have their way, they will kick and scream. If they can’t play the game they choose, they will take their ball and go home so that no one can play.
Of course, Charles Colson explains it all far better than I did. I encourage you to read his commentary, Why the Filibuster Must Go, which begins:
Over two hundred years ago, a man who wrote under the name of Publius was hunched over his desk one evening. He was attempting to convince New Yorkers to ratify the proposed United States Constitution. After a moment of thought, he dipped his quill into the ink and wrote the following: The President “is to nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint . . . judges of the Supreme Court.”
Publius, of course, was the pen name used by three of our nation’s founders when they wrote the eighty-five newspaper essays now known as the FEDERALIST PAPERS. Among the authors was Alexander Hamilton, who wrote essay number 76, from which I just quoted. These fading words on a yellowed document reveal that what a handful of U.S. senators are doing today is a constitutional travesty.
Democratic senators have for months been filibustering judges chosen by President Bush to serve on the federal courts. If the full Senate were allowed to vote on these fine judges, they would easily be confirmed. But a hostile minority is using the filibuster tactic to prevent such a vote—purely for ideological reasons.
In so doing, they are behaving as if the Senate is supposed to have equal say with the president in deciding who sits on the court. That is nonsense.
The Constitution could not be clearer. The nomination is made by the president alone. The Senate is to give its advice and consent—not demand ideological purity. Alexander Hamilton explained the intent in his essay number 76. “It is not likely,” he wrote, “that [the Senate’s] sanction would often be refused where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.”
I encourage you to read the rest of the commentary. It’s worth understanding. We are being robbed by the people who are supposed to represent us. We elect them so they will vote on issues.