In late November the NY Times ran an editorial condemning Republican consideration of removing the Senate filibuster:

The Republicans see the filibuster as an annoying obstacle. But it is actually one of the checks and balances that the founders, who worried greatly about concentration of power, built into our system of government. It is also, right now, the main means by which the 48 percent of Americans who voted for John Kerry can influence federal policy. People who call themselves conservatives should find a way of achieving their goals without declaring war on one of the oldest traditions in American democracy.

Yet on January 1, 1995, the Times editorialized that it was “Time to Retire the Filibuster,” describing the tactic as “the tool of the sore loser” and “an archaic rule that frustrates democracy and serves no useful purpose.” Sen. John Cornyn rightly asks in a letter to the editor, “Have times changed – or has the Times changed?”

But it seems the Times aren’t the only flip-floppers on the proverbial block. The Los Angeles Times published this op-ed by law professors Michael Gerhardt and Erwin Chemerinsky in which they claim that “[t]he GOP plan to eliminate the filibuster for judicial nominations would do lasting damage to the Senate.” But as Sen. Cornyn again notes, both authors have previously railed against the tactic. Professor Gerhardt published a book critical of supermajority requirements to confirm judges and Professor Chemerinsky even called it “unconstitutional” in a 1997 Stanford Law Review article. Stuart Buck has the scoop on Sen. Cornyn’s letter to the two papers. Not surprisingly, neither letter has been published. My own opinion is that filibusters should remain, but I expect consistency from others who hold that view, especially mainstream media.

This entry was posted on Saturday, December 11th, 2004 at 5:17 pm by Mystery Man and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.