The New York Times > Washington > Cheney Backs End of Filibustering
I am starting to get very worried about the effects of the Tom DeLay's troubles in the House and the impending showdown over Judicial nominations that is expected in the Senate. It seems that both these fights have something in common - The Republican party wants to change the rules to advance their agenda.
I should start out by saying that I don't mean this to be an attack on the GOP per se, because I think the Democrats would try the same thing if they could. This is not about politics, it's about principle. Each House in Congress has rules that they follow, rules that each one of those senators and representatives came to Washington knowing they had to follow. On the Senate side, the Filibuster was one of the rules. On the House side, there is an Ethics committee who can punish members for misconduct. In both cases, the GOP has suddenly decided that "Oops, these rules are inconvenient, so let's change them."
There is, I suppose, nothing wrong with changing the rules. If, after debate and reflection, the House or the Senate decides that the rules need to be changed, go ahead and change them. But to make change now isn't right. It is to opportunistic.
In the case of Tom DeLay in the house, my understanding is that a rule, which would have forced DeLay to step down from his position as Majority Leader if he is indicted, has been changed. In the Senate, a rule that requires a 60 vote majority to kill a filibuster is under attack. Now, the Constitution gives each House of Congress the right to set its own rules on how it wants to run itself, so constitutionally, I suppose that a rule change is ok. However, it seems that in both cases, the Republican party is using their ability as the majority party to set the rules to their liking. That's not okay.
Rules are funny things. They need to be flexible enough to be changed when there is a reason to change them, but rigid enough that they cannot be changed on a whim. Rules are supposed to be impartial masters, neither biased nor swayed by emotion or personal loyalty. They are supposed to apply to everybody.
Look at it this way - suppose someone buys a car. They go to a dealership and say "Show me what you have in a compact." They roll out a few cars and the person says "I want that one." and they buy it and drive off. Then they come back a year later and say "I need to move a couch - can you give me a full refund on this car and allow me to buy a pickup." On the Senate side, the controversy is they attempt to change the filibuster rules that have been in place for a long time and to change it now for one issue seems to me to be an abuse of power.
Sometimes, rules need to be changed. As circumstances and social norms change, the rules need to be updated and changed to fit the times. But there is one rule that doesn't change - ever. It's called the Golden Rule. The Republican Party, in both the House and the Senate sides of the Capitol, needs to ask itself if they are doing unto the Democrats as they would have the Democrats do unto them.
