Patterico's Pontifications

6/15/2005

L.A. Times Op-Ed Page Remains Consistent on Filibuster

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:37 am



The head of the L.A. Times op-ed page, Andres Martinez, has a commentary this morning titled Who’ll Apologize for the Filibuster? Martinez’s excellent piece, from which I’ll quote extensively, reinforces my observation that the paper’s news editors missed the filibuster angle inherent in the Senate’s recent apology for its failure to pass anti-lynching laws:

Who knew the Senate was so cheeky? On Monday, a mere three weeks after the centrist, bipartisan Gang of 14 agreed, ever so proudly, to save the institution’s fabled filibuster, senators passed a resolution apologizing for the chamber’s failure to enact anti-lynching legislation.

Astonishingly, Senate Resolution 39 makes no mention of the f-word, which denotes the mechanism that allows a minority of legislators to block votes. The resolution duly notes that at least 4,742 people, mostly African Americans, were lynched in the U.S. between 1882 and 1968; that nearly 200 anti-lynching bills, backed by seven presidents, were introduced in Congress during the first half of the 20th century; that the House of Representatives did pass three strong anti-lynching measures, but that the Senate never did, thus failing its “minimum and most basic of federal responsibilities” to those who were “deprived of life, human dignity, and the constitutional protections accorded all citizens of the United States.” As Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat who sponsored the resolution, said, the Senate was “uniquely culpable” for Washington’s failure to protect U.S. citizens from a type of domestic terrorism often orchestrated by local authorities.

What wasn’t said is that the Senate was “uniquely culpable” because it cherished the filibuster — a procedural rule that enhances each member’s individual power — over the Constitution. The Senate’s failure to acknowledge the cause of its homicidal negligence robs its apology of much meaning or sincerity.

Of course, yesterday The Times‘s news editors followed the lead of Senators like Landrieu, and didn’t even mention the word filibuster until the final sentence of their article. But Martinez gets the irony:

Those unfamiliar with history today, or generations from now, might blame the American people for sending senators to Washington who were evil or out of touch. But there were 70 senators willing to sponsor anti-lynching legislation as far back as 1938, and lives could have been saved if the federal government had taken action then.

The apology, in effect, covers up just how self-interested the Senate’s actions really were, and how indefensible the filibuster remains. It distorts history by suggesting that a majority of senators were on the same moral plane with the anti-civil rights posse made up of the likes of Theodore Bilbo of Mississippi and Richard Russell of Georgia. (One hopes the Senate’s cheekiness this week didn’t extend to hosting any anti-lynching festivities in the unfortunately named Russell Senate Office Building, a monument to the Senate’s obscene self-worship.)

It’s hardly shocking that Landrieu wanted to keep the f-word out of the resolution. She was one of those moderates who saved the filibuster from attempts by conservative Republicans to “nuke” it for judicial nominations — by allowing some of President Bush’s stalled nominees to get a vote. During the Gang of 14 news conference, Landrieu exuberantly proclaimed: “I am so proud we were able to reach an agreement that truly reflects the best traditions of the Senate.”

She went on to say that the deal “helps protect these cherished traditions by ensuring that the minority, even a lone individual, will continue to have the right to speak up and be heard.” Her fellow sensible centrist, Republican Susan Collins of Maine, said the agreement “helps preserve the unique culture of this institution,” a “culture in which legislative goals are reached with patience and perseverance.”

Unique culture, unique culpability; take your pick.

Quite a different take from the news editors who buried the role of the filibuster yesterday. In light of the Senators’ recent ridiculous praise of the filibuster, news editors without an agenda would normally have highlighted this insight into the filibuster’s dark past. The disingenuousness of Landrieu’s statements yesterday, compared with her statements at the “Gang of 14” press conference, makes for a nice angle that the news editors entirely missed (or did they?). Not so Martinez.

These senators are insulting our intelligence. The filibuster is an anti-democratic instrument that upsets the delicate system of checks and balances already written into the Constitution. Liberal Democrats in the Senate aren’t in favor of lynching, but they are fighting to preserve a reactionary weapon that, in future wrenching national debates, will empower obstructionists to kidnap that body just as they did during the civil rights debates. Not acknowledging that the filibuster was at issue in the lynching context, not even to address the filibuster’s tarnished history, amounts to intellectual cowardice.

The Senate centrists have promised to filibuster judicial nominees only in “extraordinary circumstances,” which presumably will include the resignation of Chief Justice William Rehnquist. When that happens, Majority Leader Bill Frist should again attack the filibuster, and not just for judicial confirmation battles.

If the Senate really wants to atone for its past sins, it should nuke the filibuster for all purposes.

I don’t have a strong opinion about this conclusion; but Martinez’s logic is hard to argue with. In any event, it’s refreshing for him to notice what Senators and Times news editors tried to hide: the relevant fact — highlighted by the lynching debate — that the filibuster has a very ugly side to its history.

It just goes to show you that editors with a different point of view pick up on points that are missed by editors who toe the party line.

2 Responses to “L.A. Times Op-Ed Page Remains Consistent on Filibuster”

  1. My question is, when the Senate made the resolution, were they consciously aware of this angle but ignored it or were they oblivious to it? Likewise for the newspaper editors?

    Maybe it doesn’t make any difference, but I would like to understand how much people just don’t see because of their strong preconceived views, or where they realize the points but choose to not only differ in opinion and discuss it with intellectual honesty, but try to purposefully bury other views. It seems in one case patient discussion may be of help, but in the other case you just need to bring overwhelming evidence to bear for those who are watching the debate.

    Thanks for your thoughts, please pardon any implied naivete’.

    MD in Philly

    MD in Philly (b3202e)

  2. Why is there a problem with the filibuster? Its just a tool. What you use it for is the problem.

    actus (3be069)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0686 secs.