NYT op-ed fails Civics 101

No one understands that it takes sixty votes to pass non-budget legislation in the Senate because of the filibuster. Apparently this ignorance extends to the editors of the New York Times op-ed page, who let Jean Edward Smith write the following in a piece about changing the number of seats on the Supreme Court:

If the current five-man majority persists in thumbing its nose at popular values, the election of a Democratic president and Congress could provide a corrective. It requires only a majority vote in both houses to add a justice or two.

No, it requires sixty votes, and no Republican will ever vote for such a plan. Hence, court-packing is unlikely to happen again unless one party secures a filibuster-proof Senate majority. In short, the premise of the piece (that such a change is feasible) is false.

Comments

[Seth]

What happened to all that nonsense about invoking the so-called "nuclear option"? One wonders if the Republicans would remain as keen as they once were on it.

[daveinboca]

The NYT puts an incompetent hack up to project its wish which is father to the thought---pack the Court if it disagrees with the majority of public opinion. What a riot!

About the only time the Supreme Court was overruled was when Jackson told Marshall to enforce his ruling on the trail of tears and when Lincoln shunted Taney to oblivion.

The NYT is having a Linda Greenhouse moment of vapid vacuous shriek-out.

Actually, poll after poll shows that the Roberts court IS reflecting the majority---just not the majority of space cadets in the NTY cocoon-bubble.

And Justice Ginzberg can always read her delusional minority opinions after napping through the argument on the bench! She is just like her ACLU colleagues---don't bother her with arguments, her mind's made up. If this Smith dude had a mind, it would resemble hers.

[Rob]

In the good old days, a filibuster required senators to continue speaking for days and nights on end, without a break. Because of its difficulty, it was a tactic that was rarely used.

Then, in a "reform," the Senate decided that all that was necessary for there to be a filibuster was simply to declare a filibuster. If cloture cannot be achieved, the filibuster has succeeded and the bill is shelved.

We'd be much better off to return to the true meaning of a filibuster. The presence of C-SPAN cameras would likely make senators even more reluctant than they were in the past to appear ridiculous and obstructionist. By making the filibuster so painless and so shielded from public view, we've essentially created a non-constitutional requirement for a 60-member supermajority for the passage of most bills. James Madison would be appalled, and so should we.

[Howard]

I'm with Rob.

I say make 'em dance all night! Republicans and Democrats alike - if you want to filibuster you must dance.

That'd make the filibuster worth watching.

*******

By the way - interesting history of the Court. But what is this business about "thumbing its nose at popular values"?

Is the Supreme Court supposed to be some kind of elevated American Idol panel?

Heck, let's just skip the Court entirely - just dial in your own vote.

Sad concluding commentary from the NY Times. Very weak.

********

Oh, yeah, not to let the Republicans off too easy - but what's with all this business about an "up/down" vote except when they are facing a though Congress?

Then Bush just makes a recess appointment.

Make 'em dance for that Ambassadorship to Belgium too!

[Michael Young]

The cloture process is part of
the Senate rules that are
reestablished each session.
They have been changed before
-- most recently to get sorely
needed civil rights
legislation through -- and
they can be changed again. A
sufficiently bold majority
could eliminate the 60-vote
cloture requirement entirely
at the start of 2009.

I really hope it doesn't come
to that. I think that it is
good to have some accomodation
to let a minority with intense
feelings on an issue trump a
weak majority. Sadly, the
filibuster has become entirely
too routine, used on
day-to-day issues. If a
serious threat to change the
rules next time won't restore
it to an uncommon occurrance,
I'd be willing to follow
through on the threat.