Justice Held Hostage
The Miller proposal, which is based on an idea put forth in 1995 by Democratic senators Joseph Lieberman and Tom Harkin, would make it progressively more difficult for a minority party to sustain a filibuster against a nominee with majority support. Under the plan, when a filibuster is under way and the majority tries to break it by holding a cloture vote, the first vote would require, as it does today, 60 votes to break the filibuster. But if the first attempt fails, the next cloture vote would require just 57 votes to end debate. If a third cloture vote was needed, 54 votes would be needed to end debate. Finally, a fourth cloture vote would require just 51 votes, a simple majority, to move on to a final confirmation vote. At that point, the majority's will would prevail.
"What we're battling now is the left wing of the Democratic Senate caucus, which is telling the moderates what to do," says one Republican. "If the president can maintain his popularity and be the kind of Senate campaigner that he was last time [in 2002], then we can break their backs." In this scenario, a Democratic defeat in 2004 would likely cause party moderates to reject the left wing — and the interest groups that have spearheaded opposition to the president's nominees — and move away from filibusters and other obstructionist tactics.
"If these guys go up to the election and get their back broken," says the Republican, "then we win."
Byron York
Read the whole article