By HRC President Joe Solmonese
As kids we all learned the old lesson that you can't change the rules in
the middle of a game, no matter how difficult the game becomes. Some
Senators seem to be forgetting that principle as they consider changing
the more than 200-year tradition surrounding judicial nominations.
The Senate has confirmed more than 200 of President Bush's nominees
since he took office. According to the Alliance for Justice, almost a
quarter of all federal judges have been appointed by President Bush. And
Democrats have filibustered only a handful of the most extreme
appointments. But some Senators want to ensure that doesn't happen
again.
Majority Leader Frist is leading the charge to eliminate filibustering
on judicial nominations, an effort being called the "nuclear option" to
acknowledge its severity and consequences for our government.
A procedure that delays votes through unlimited debate, the filibuster
has been employed by Republicans and Democrats alike for more than two
centuries to prevent ideological extremism. It allows the minority party
to check the powers of the majority.
If the nuclear option is invoked, it would end the minority's ability to
block extreme judicial nominees, like the fewer than 10 out of 200
nominees who are currently being blocked because of their dismal records
on civil liberties.
Given that the U.S. Supreme Court will likely have several vacancies in
the next four years, this situation is particularly dire. Tinkering with
the rules raises the prospect of a radical change to the makeup of our
nation's highest court, and thus a radical change in the state of law
protecting gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans.
Particularly at risk are the basic rights that ensure fairness and
equality for all Americans, rights that have historically been provided
by the courts. After all, the judicial branch was established by the
Framers of the Constitution so that it could protect against the
"tyranny of the majority." Judges were also given lifetime appointments
to ensure that they were insulated from electoral pressures when
considering the rights of unpopular minorities. The opposition wants to
keep lifetime appointments while taking away the power to dissent over a
nominee.
Consider the effect this could have on the GLBT community. Lawrence v.
Texas, the Supreme Court case that struck down the last remaining sodomy
laws – laws that were used to brand GLBT people as criminals, was won by
just one vote. Had there been no dissent on the nomination of Judge
Robert Bork to the Supreme Court, he would have sat on the bench rather
than Justice Kennedy. Justice Kennedy voted to overturn sodomy laws; in
fact, he wrote the majority opinion. Judge Bork is an outspoken opponent
of GLBT rights and has since testified before Congress in support of an
amendment to the Constitution denying same-sex couples the right to
marry.
Clearly, LGBT Americans have much to lose from a change in the
filibuster rules and we should be active in opposing the nuclear option.
While hard work will continue in state legislatures and the halls of
Congress, there's no doubt that the judiciary provides our community
with huge gains and protections.
This move to take away the filibuster is a blatant power grab and an
unprincipled attempt to change longstanding rules. It has been
denounced by fair-minded Democrats and Republicans alike, including
Sens. Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid, John McCain and
Olympia Snowe.
Now it's time for us to denounce it. Write or call your Senators and
tell them that you oppose the nuclear option. Let them know that our
society's highest aspirations – equality and justice, for instance –
depend on a system of rules that are consistently applied. And remind
them of that childhood lesson.
Enviroshop is maintained by dedicated NetSys Interactive Inc. owners & employees who generously contribute their time to maintenance & editing, web design, custom programming, & website hosting for Enviroshop.