Washington Office weighs in on congressional filibuster fight
The Layman Online, May 19, 2005
Equating filibusters with hearing minority voices, the Washington Office of the Presbyterian Church (USA) is urging that Congress’ use of filibusters on President George Bush’s judicial nominess not be ended.
In its May/June 2005 Washington Report, Elenora Giddings Ivory, director of the Washington Office, said “Careful and independent scrutiny of judicial nominees can happen during the confirmation process in the Senate. Scrutiny should not be shortchanged by cutting off extended debate (filibuster). Without careful review we can almost guarantee that we will open our newspapers one morning and see stories of judges who are being impeached.”
According to Fox News, Democrats in Congress have prevented final votes on 10 of Bush’s first-term appeals court nominees with threats of filibusters. And they have threatened to do the same this year to seven of the judges Bush has renominated.
Republicans, the Fox News report said, are considering doing away with the filibuster in order to get an up-or-down vote on the nominees. The filibuster can be overcome only by a majority of 60 votes or more in the 100-member Senate.
“Debate the nominee for five hours, debate the nominee for 50 hours. Vote for the nominee, vote against the nominee,” said Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, as reported by CNN. “But in the end, vote. Senators, colleagues, let’s do our duty and vote.”
CNN’s report stated that Frist proposes to end filibusters on judicial nominees by requiring a simple majority of 51 to end debate. It’s been called the “nuclear option,” said the report because Democrats have threatened to respond by slowing Senate business to a crawl.
According to Giddings-Ivory, “We expect reasoned debate on the concerns that come before them. PCUSA General Assembly policies have long supported the right of the minority to be heard and represented. The majority prevails, but attention to minority rights requires a 2/3rds vote to close debate; because we value the unity of the body, ending debate requires more than a majority, but rather the clear will of the assembly.”
She continued: “Current Senate proposals reject 200 years of U.S. government practice, and show that the full body of the Senate has been devalued. Excluding minority viewpoints weakens America. Debate and balanced direction for the country is no longer the guiding principle; that has now become domination by the majority party. This balance has served the U.S. well, by defending against majority domination and a tendency toward extremism.
“After an election, we do not automatically lose our right to speak out or have our views represented in legislative debate simply because our views may be on the wrong side of the conservative/liberal, red state/blue state or the right/left spectrum. The Senate gives Senators the privilege of continuing to voice their opinions on an issue until 60 percent of the body is convinced that the time for debate has ended. Newly proposed rules could change the confirmation process. These proposals could also ultimately be used in the legislative process, to negate the voice of the minority.”
As news of the PCUSA’s politicking has reached the pews, church members are questioning Giddings-Ivory’s rationale. In a letter to The Layman Online, Charles Plant asked:
- “Why is the Washington Office advocating keeping the filibuster under the guise of protecting minorities? I for one do not appreciate the arrogant presumptuousness of the Washington Office as it presumes to lobby for our denomination on matters which our denomination has not addressed and does not share an agreed consensus.”
General Assembly policy directs that the Washington Office may lobby only on behalf of positions that have been adopted by the General Assembly. These has been no General Assembly vote on the filibuster issue.