Filibuster outdated

The editorial titled “Courting nukes” (BDN, June 10) takes the words right out of Sen. Tom Daschle’s mouth. Only two nominees have been blocked, it said, while more than 120 have been confirmed. This is not the total number presented to the Senate, and the vacancies in the courts are so great that Chief Justice Renquist recently chastised that august body for not allowing more vacancies to be filled.

But the editorial lacks perspective, as it does not state that Theodore Olson and Miguel Estrada are the only appellate court nominees. Since Supreme Court nominees are often drawn from the appellate court, it has become the strategy of the Democrats to limit appointments there that are not of their political persuasion.

One of the nominees is a woman and the other a Hispanic. Democrats, claiming to be the party of the rights of women and minorities, are horrified at the prospect of having to air their political bias by not confirming minorities on the basis of their own political persuasion.

When the Democrats were in power recently, they prevented nominations from coming before the full Senate by blocking them in the Judiciary Committee. Thus, a minority of 10 spoke for the whole Senate. This practice should be tested before the Supreme Court, since Article II of the Constitution states that the president has the power to appoint with the advice and consent of the Senate, and not a committee thereof.

The filibuster dates from Roman times, but nowadays it seems to be a peculiar device of the U.S. Senate. The House of Representatives seems to function well without it. Massachusetts Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge once remarked, “To vote without debate is perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile.”

Douglas Hundley

Perry