Inverso out

Voters in South Brunswick, Cranbury, Jamesburg and Monroe will have a new face representing them in the state Senate this year. Sen. Peter Inverso, a Republican, is expected to announce today that he will not seek re-election to a sixth term, making him the 12th senator to announce his retirement.

Politics NJ is speculating that Assemblyman Bill Baroni, a Republican, will run in his stead, though the two-term Assemblyman just announced his reelection plans last week.

Assemblyman Bill Baroni is expected to seek the GOP nomination for State Senate. Senate Republicans say that Inverso will endorse Baroni for his seat.

On Saturday, Mercer County Democrats endorsed Seema Singh, the state Ratepayer Advocate, as their candidate for Senate. Baroni vs. Singh offers a contest between Baroni’s base in blue collar Hamilton and Singh’s appeal to a growing block of Asian American voters in the 14th district.

Ms. Singh, who lives in South Brunswick had been slated to be the state’s public advocate by former Gov. Jim McGreevey, but the McGreevey administration failed to reinstate the position.

As for Mr. Baroni, he told Gannett:

“I intend to carry on his legacy,” said Baroni.

We’ll see where this goes. More later.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick
The Cranbury Press Blog

E-mail me by clicking here

Remember the nuclear option

I know I was in the minority on this point among liberals and progressives, but back when the Senate was preparing to vote on several Bush court nominees I wrote a column calling for the end of the Senate filibuster.

My argument was a simple one: The filibuster thwarts, rather than defends, democracy, giving the minority too much power over the Senate.

The filibuster is, as the self-professed “liberal Democrat” Timothy Noah wrote … on the online magazine Slate, a conservative instrument designed to thwart the will of the majority. The Los Angeles Times, in an editorial, echoes this: “The filibuster is a reactionary instrument that goes too far in empowering a minority of senators,” the paper wrote.

At the time, Democrats were threatening to use the method to prevent some noxious Bush nominees from rising to the federal bench. Liberals were calling loudly for all Democrats to stand firm, their 45-vote bloc allowing them to prevent the majority from closing out debate, which would mean that no vote could be taken and the judicial nominees would remain in limbo. (Disclosure: I had the same argument in an earlier column, before thinking the issue through.)

Republicans were livid and were calling for the “nuclear option” (a poor choice of words in a time of war), in which the party would just change the rules and eliminate the maneuver. Thanks to a group of so-called moderates, it never happened. A compromise was reached and some of the nominees were confirmed.

The compromise ended two debates — one on the judges and the other on the legitimacy of the filibuster.

The filibuster is back in the news these days, as the Republicans, now in the minority, are resorting to the very tactic they decried just two years ago in an effort to prevent debate over a nonbinding resolution opposing the Bush surge plan for Iraq.

Democrats should take note and remember their history. They may have successfully used the filibuster to keep some nominees from getting through, but conservatives also have been successful in the past — Southern Democrats used it from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s to derail civil rights legislation.

Basically, if there were no filibuster, the Senate would be debating war and not whether to debate.

South Brunswick Post, The Cranbury Press
The Blog of South Brunswick