Sen Levin responds to my filibuster letter
I guess I can count on Mr Levin for a response to my concerns. His response reads like a form letter but at least its a response and the correct one too.
Dear Mr. Lathrop:
Thank you for contacting me about the threat by the majority in the Senate to use extraordinary and unprecedented parliamentary procedures, the so-called "nuclear option", to end the Senate filibuster.
For more than 200 years, the rules and traditions of the United States Senate have protected minority rights and the system of checks and balances through the right of senators to extended debate. Currently, it requires 60 votes to end debate in the Senate and to bring a matter to a vote whether that matter is legislative, ratification of a treaty or the confirmation of a nomination. Throughout the Senate's history, this rule has served not only to protect the minority, but also to encourage senators in the majority and the minority to work out their differences.
With respect to nominations, the need to gain the support of at least 60 senators has historically encouraged presidents of both parties to take this into consideration and select judicial nominees who are in the mainstream and who can attract the support of members of both parties. This is particularly important because federal judges hold lifetime positions.
Since the start of the Bush administration, the Senate has been carrying out its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the president's nominations to the federal courts. The Senate has confirmed more than 200 of President Bush's judicial nominees, resulting in the lowest vacancy rate in the federal courts in over 13 years. Only 10 of the president's nominees have not been confirmed. This compares to more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees who were blocked by Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee from even getting a confirmation vote.
The right of extended debate in the Senate is an integral part of our system of checks and balances and an important historic protection of the rights of the minority in our country. I oppose the so-called "nuclear option", which the majority party is considering using. Under this scenerio, the presiding officer of the Senate would arbitrarily limit debate in contradiction of the Senate's rules, precedents and practices, and the majority would then uphold the ruling of the chair. If the majority wants to propose a change in the rules of the Senate, the right way to do so is to follow the long-standing procedures in the Senate's rules for changing the rules, not ripping up the rule book for a partisan advantage of the moment.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
Dear Mr. Lathrop:
Thank you for contacting me about the threat by the majority in the Senate to use extraordinary and unprecedented parliamentary procedures, the so-called "nuclear option", to end the Senate filibuster.
For more than 200 years, the rules and traditions of the United States Senate have protected minority rights and the system of checks and balances through the right of senators to extended debate. Currently, it requires 60 votes to end debate in the Senate and to bring a matter to a vote whether that matter is legislative, ratification of a treaty or the confirmation of a nomination. Throughout the Senate's history, this rule has served not only to protect the minority, but also to encourage senators in the majority and the minority to work out their differences.
With respect to nominations, the need to gain the support of at least 60 senators has historically encouraged presidents of both parties to take this into consideration and select judicial nominees who are in the mainstream and who can attract the support of members of both parties. This is particularly important because federal judges hold lifetime positions.
Since the start of the Bush administration, the Senate has been carrying out its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on the president's nominations to the federal courts. The Senate has confirmed more than 200 of President Bush's judicial nominees, resulting in the lowest vacancy rate in the federal courts in over 13 years. Only 10 of the president's nominees have not been confirmed. This compares to more than 60 of President Clinton's judicial nominees who were blocked by Republicans in the Senate Judiciary Committee from even getting a confirmation vote.
The right of extended debate in the Senate is an integral part of our system of checks and balances and an important historic protection of the rights of the minority in our country. I oppose the so-called "nuclear option", which the majority party is considering using. Under this scenerio, the presiding officer of the Senate would arbitrarily limit debate in contradiction of the Senate's rules, precedents and practices, and the majority would then uphold the ruling of the chair. If the majority wants to propose a change in the rules of the Senate, the right way to do so is to follow the long-standing procedures in the Senate's rules for changing the rules, not ripping up the rule book for a partisan advantage of the moment.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin
posted by R Lathrop at 11:10 AM
<< Home