A Flood of Words on the Filibuster

You are correct in your April 26 editorial, “Nuke the Filibuster,” about the ox being gored determining who is for or against the filibuster, but dead wrong in your analysis. When the Democrats had the power and the Republicans were using the filibuster, what the Dems didn’t do was try to break the rule. What they were forced to do was compromise and try to get social legislation for the people enacted.

What the Republicans want to do is eliminate the filibuster so they can continue the process of making legislation and appointments that never benefit the people of America, only the corporate and wealthy interests. As always, the Democrats want to follow the rules and the Republicans want to find a way to avoid, rescind or make them nugatory.

S. K. Snedegar

Pensacola, Fla.

*

Having just listened to hours of testimony from constitutional law experts who demonstrated repeatedly that the filibuster is grounded in the specific language of the Constitution and who deplored the media’s tendency to perpetuate the right-wing myth that the filibuster is unconstitutional, I was deeply disappointed in The Times’ editorial. Why should Times’ readers pay for this kind of “analysis” when we can get it for nothing on right-wing talk radio?

Dennis M. Clausen

Escondido

*

I was surprised with your editorial stance: “The filibuster is a reactionary instrument.” The filibuster itself is neither good nor bad. It is a tool that can be used by parties for the improvement or detriment of the nation.

Ultimately, when it is used by negative forces (against civil rights, campaign finance reform), those using it get exposed. When it is invoked to ensure a balance (in this instance, to block extreme judges), the country breathes a sigh of relief. Remember, the filibuster brings everyone back to the table and reminds those who have forgotten that there are other points of view.

The Senate and House are stocked with Republicans who are dizzy with power. Oddly (as in the Terri Schiavo case and Social Security), they don’t represent mainstream America. We the people, Republican and Democrat, are grateful that there is a method to apply the brakes on an unrepresentative juggernaut.

Deirdre Lenihan

Pacific Palisades

*

I not only thoroughly agree with the contents of your editorial but strongly suggest you send copies to members of Congress. It may convince some of them, but I doubt it will do much good with Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.). The filibuster is truly not a partisan issue; the Constitution should govern.

Joseph Mark Klein

Pacific Palisades

*

When a single party controls all branches of government, executive, judiciary, House and Senate, as well as a large portion of the mainstream media, the system of checks and balances thought indispensable by the founders of our country fails.

The result is extremist appointments and profound divisiveness. Especially when a representational majority doesn’t reflect a popular majority (approval ratings for Bush and Congress at all-time lows), the safeguard of the filibuster is not only appropriate, it is absolutely essential to preserve democracy.

Karl Manheim

Professor of Law

Loyola Law School

Los Angeles