Intelligent Life Discovered on Mars in George Will

I was briefly concerned that hackers had taken over the web site for the Washington Post when I saw George Will had a column entitled, "Why filibusters Should be Allowed." Before you get too excited, you may rest assured that Will has not suddenly grown a progressive conscience or become concerned with the needs of ordinary citizens over the zealous agenda of theocons or the greedy hunger of corporate giants. He does, however, make a solid argument as to why the filibuster is needed in the legislative process and why the GOP should be reluctant to eliminate it.

Some conservatives call filibusters of judicial nominations unconstitutional because they violate the separation of powers by preventing the president from doing his constitutional duty of staffing the judiciary. But the Senate has the constitutional role of completing the staffing process that the president initiates.

Some conservatives say the Constitution's framers "knew what supermajorities they wanted" -- the Constitution requires various supermajorities, for ratifying treaties, impeachment convictions, etc.; therefore, other supermajority rules are unconstitutional. But it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted. Besides, the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."

Some conservatives say there is a "constitutional right" to have an up-or-down Senate vote on nominees. But in whom does this right inhere? The nominees? The president? This is a perverse contention coming from conservatives eager to confirm judges who will stop the promiscuous discovery by courts of spurious constitutional rights. And conservatives eager to confirm judges respectful of the Constitution's text should not read its stipulation that no nominee shall be confirmed without a favorable Senate vote as a requirement that the Senate vote.

Will sees a different solution to the problem of contentious judicial nominations, and I have to agree with the formula if not the sides chosen.

The Senate's institutional paralysis over judicial confirmations is a political problem for which there is a political solution: 60 Republican senators.

That's the point exactly, and all you have to do is substitute the word "Democratic" for "Republican" in that sentence. There is a new election cycle coming up, and 17 Democratic Senate seats are on the block. There are nearly that many GOP seats up for grabs. If the Democrats manage to lose five more seats in the Senate without picking up any of those Republican slots, then I'm sorry to say that the battle is over... probably for a very long time. That will mean that a combination of two things has happened.

• There has been too great of a shift all across America to neoconservative, theocratic "values" and a true majority of people are rejecting progressive thinking and enlightenment.
• The Democratic party has lost its way and its leadership so badly that they are unfit to manage their legislative affairs and will have to take the portion they are given.

If that's the case, then you may want to start looking into your Canadian citizenship applications now, because a long dark road lies ahead. Personally, however, I still believe that a mid-term rebound is the rule, not the exception. Plus, the arrogant actions of the Republicans since the last election, combined with their continued ethical problems, are already starting to turn people off. Five seats isn't a huge divide in either direction. If Howard Dean actually turns out to be the leader needed to lead the Democrats out of the darkness and into the promised land, they could not only prevent a GOP super-majority, but could actually take make the Senate majority role. And that will make more difference than winning or losing the 2008 White House race.