http://www.mydd.com/story/2009/11/10/172946/42Specter: Make them Filibuster
by Jonathan Singer, Tue Nov 10, 2009 at 05:29:46 PM EST
This afternoon I was able to participate in a progressive blogger conference call with Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter, the (relatively) newly minted member of the Democratic caucus in the chamber.
I wasn't able to catch all of the call, but I did manage to get into a bit of a conversation with the Senator about filibusters and the judiciary. To start, I asked which Specter we would see if reelected in 2010 -- the one who was instrumental in keeping Robert Bork out of the Supreme Court, or the one who was equally instrumental in helping Clarence Thomas get there. Specter didn't come off as particularly contrite or remorseful for his role during the Thomas hearings, defending the line of questioning he pursued at the time. For the purposes of the Democratic Senate primary in Pennsylvania, where Specter will face Congressman Joe Sestak next year, the Senator might consider finessing his answer here a bit (especially considering that Justice Thomas isn't exactly the most popular jurist among Democrats or progressives).
To pivot,
I asked more concretely what Specter would do to ensure that more of President Obama's nominees make it to the bench. Specter was stronger here, saying that it is time to go back to the way it was when he first arrived at the Senate when members were forced to actually speak ad infinitum if they wished to filibuster, whether on a nomination or a piece of legislation. (Specter added, too, that Republican obstructionism is one of the reasons he bolted the party earlier this year.) During the time when Howard Baker was Senate Majority Leader, Specter recalled, the Senate would be held open in all-night sessions until the business before the chamber was completed, forcing those in the opposition to actually filibuster rather than merely threaten it.Asked whether it would be worth it to change the rules of the Senate to lower the threshold of the filibuster from 60 votes to, say, 55, Specter noted that it is more difficult to change the rules than to overcome a filibuster today (with a rule change requiring two-thirds support rather than just three-fifths). When I tried to allude to the rules change in 1975, when the Senate lowered the threshold for cloture from 67 votes to 60 on just a bare majority vote (rather than a two-thirds majority normal rules change vote), Specter did not appear to be familiar with the unorthodox tactic (which isn't unreasonable considering that it took place before he was elected to the chamber and isn't being widely discussed today).
Nevertheless, Specter does appear focused on helping get President Obama's judicial nominees through the Senate, which is an issue of concern to me as it is I'm sure for others. And he certainly can tell a story. Whether this will be enough for Pennsylvania voters next year, however remains to be seen.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
