Democracy in the United States demands majority rule, but provides special protections, checks and balances and power sharing to protect the minority. One of those power sharing arrangements is out of whack.

The filibuster is a parliamentary rule that allows a single United States senator to gum up the workings of the entire body. It flows from the Senate’s tradition of allowing unlimited debate on an issue. In recent times, the filibuster has been used most often to stop a president’s judicial nominees from receiving an up-or-down vote from the Senate.

Sen. Bill Frist, the Republican majority leader, has proposed a rule change that would establish a sliding scale on votes to end debate, the necessary maneuver to stop a filibuster. Frist would gradually lower the requirement over the course of four votes. In the first round, the senate would still require 60 votes for cloture. That number would drop to 57, 54 and then 51.

The filibuster has a long, if not distinguished, history in the Senate. It has long been a tool of last resort by the political party out of power to stop legislation and nominations. Most famously, the filibuster was used in the fight against civil rights. If not for the Texas-league arm bending and politicking of then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson, Jim Crow and his allies would have carried on, at least for a while.

Sen. Frist is not the first to suggest amending the rule. In the 1990s, when President Clinton was having his own troubles pushing judicial nominations through the Senate, Sens. Tom Harkin and Joe Lieberman advocated similar reforms. Then, as now, the party utilizing the filibuster was loath to give up its prerogative.

The system needs to be reformed. Here’s our proposal: Adopt Sen. Frist’s graduated voting scale, but delay the rule’s implementation until after the 2004 presidential and congressional elections. It doesn’t help the president and his allies right now, but it is a proposal that might garner the necessary support of Democrats, ever hopeful of recapturing the White House.

It’s a fair solution that doesn’t change the rules in the middle of a legislative session and goes a long way to restoring the Senate’s traditional role to advise and consent on judicial nominees.
[email protected]

Returning ethics


Have accountability and responsibility come back in vogue?

After years of unapologetic corporate and public corruption there has been a distinct shift in assigning and taking blame for wrongdoing.

It is not impossible to imagine that Martha Stewart’s money and power would have protected her from a nine-count indictment five years ago. Not last week.

It would not be improbable to imagine that Vice Adm. Richard J. Naughton, superintendent of the U.S. Naval Academy, would have used his prestige and position to silence assertions that he had improper contact with a Marine sentry when the sentry wouldn’t let him in the gates at Annapolis without proper identification. Last week, Naughton resigned after he recognized his continued presence was having a disruptive effect on faculty.

And, a decade ago, the discontent and unethical work habits at the New York Times might have been limited to interoffice memos instead of a front page confession and subsequent resignations of the newspaper’s top editors.

This, as Stewart might say, is a good thing. It’s a demonstration that public sensibilities do matter, that honor is important and that there is a recognizable difference between right and wrong.


[email protected]