I keep hearing that the filibuster is one of our fine checks and balances, but where is that written in the Constitution?

Even though there are seven instances in the Constitution where super-majorities are required (ratifying treaties, impeachment, overturning vetoes, etc.) confirming judges is not mentioned as one of them and only requires a majority.

The Constitution says each house can set its own rules. If the Senate wants to change a rule or how it is executed, it has that right.

And tradition?

First, it is only recently that the filibuster has been used to stop judges on the Senate floor. The filibuster and how it has been applied has evolved over the generations.

At one time, one senator could keep debate going indefinitely. The rule changed to allow two-thirds of the members to end debate, and then that was watered down to the present three-fifths (60). The filibuster is a relic from the good old boy era when senators were selected by state legislatures, not elected by the people directly, and has a disgraceful history of being used to stop civil rights legislation.

Calling judicial filibusters a great tradition of checks and balances supports keeping the judicial system filled with people who disregard the real system of checks and balances. It supports a system where current Supreme Court justices openly admit to looking to foreign law to help them make decisions and reading their views on policy into their interpretations.

Matt Mower, Lewiston

Copy the Story Link