Democratic partisans may not like this — West Virginians going to the polls in November to replace the recently deceased Robert Byrd in the U.S. Senate — but it is only fair to ask voters who they want sitting in the Senate. Governors should not get the chance to appoint Senators, even on a temporary basis. Special elections to fill vacancies should be the rule.
Unemployment is at a decades-long high and yet federal benefits are scheduled to run out this weekend, unless a single U.S. senator lifts his objection.
Forget Sen. Jim Bunning’s hypocrisy — demanding benefits be paid for even after voting for massive tax cuts that were not offset with any spending cuts — the Senate hold he is using is just one more example of how the upper house has fallen into disrepair.
One senator can hold up legislation for any reasons at anytime. A minority of senators can stymie bills — a minority representing no more than one ninth of the national population — and even if we can get through a filibuster, we face the prospect that half the Senate — representing about 20 percent or 25 percent of the population — could kill a bill.
The compromise that created the Senate was a logical outgrowth of the times. The individual states in the late 18th century functioned as independent nations on some level and the compromise was needed to get the smaller states on board. Today, such a compromise looks quite quaint.
Amending the U.S. Constitution to reconstitute the Senate would likely be impossible, however, because the compromise enshrined small-state power in the amendment process. But the Senate cannot continue to (mal)function the way it has.
Anyone else with Ben Bernanke’s track record at the Federal Reserve would likely find themselves out of a job. But unless all 30 senators who have refrained from commenting on his renomination vote no, opponents opt for a filibuster and convince 20 of those holdouts to join them or enough senators in the pro-Bernanke camp change their minds, we are looking at another four-year term for Bernanke as chairman.
For the record, here is how things are lining up, according to Bloomberg:
By the way, both of New Jersey’s senators — Democrats Bob Menendez and Frank Lautenberg — are on record supporting his renomination.
The headline of this post from OpenLeft says it all:
Democrats would gain 10 Senate seats by eliminating the filibuster
It’s not about gaining seats, of course. It is about allowing the majority to do what it was elected to do.
His opening statement at Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on Sonia Sotomayor, President Barack Obama’s nominee to replace Justice David Souter on the Supreme Court, already has gone a long way toward alleviating some of my concerns.
Here is the relevant passage:
First, I believe the position of Congress with respect to the Courts and the Executive is in jeopardy. Even before I aspired to represent the people of Minnesota in the United States Senate, I believed that the Framers made Congress the first branch of government for a reason. It answers most directly to the people and has the legitimacy to speak for the people in crafting laws to be carried out by the executive branch.
I am wary of judicial activism and I believe in judicial restraint. Except under the most exceptional circumstances, the judicial branch is designed to show deep deference to Congress and not make policy by itself.
Yet looking at recent decisions on voting rights, campaign finance reform, and a number of other topics, it appears that appropriate deference may not have been shown in the past few years – and there are ominous signs that judicial activism is on the rise in these areas.
I agree with Senator Feingold and Senator Whitehouse that we hear a lot about judicial activism when politicians talk about what kind of judge they want in the Supreme Court. But it seems that their definition of an activist judge is one who votes differently than they would like. Because during the Rhenquist Court, Justice Clarence Thomas voted to overturn federal laws more than Justices Stevens and Breyer combined.
Second, I am concerned that Americans are facing new barriers to defending their individual rights. The Supreme Court is the last court in the land where an individual is promised a level playing field and can seek to right a wrong:
- It is the last place an employee can go if he or she is discriminated against because of age, gender, or color.
- It is the last place a small business owner can go to ensure free and fair competition in the market.
- It is the last place an investor can go to try to recover losses from securities fraud.
- It is the last place a person can go to protect the free flow of information on the internet.
- It is the last place a citizen can go to protect his or her vote.
- It is the last place where a woman can go to protect her reproductive health and rights.
Yet from what I see, on each of those fronts, for each of those rights, the
past decade has made it a little bit harder for American citizens to defend
themselves.
As far as opening statements go, Sen. Franken’s shows he plans to be serious, that his chief concern will be the people — as opposed to the money interests — and that places him in stark contrast with most of his colleagues.
This sense of responsibility to the constitution has been evident in his questioning, as well, and stands in stark contrast to the race-based rhetoric of a GOP that seems still to be fighting the culture wars of the early Bush administration.
Hank Kalet 