Judicial filibuster update

That “Texas Republican” John Cornyn has a lucid, well-reasoned piece in today’s Wall Street Journal Opinion Journal titled “The Constitution and the Judiciary.” Key section:

Moreover, abusive filibusters against judicial nominations uniquely threaten both presidential power and judicial independence--and are thus more dubious than filibusters of legislation, an area of pre-eminent congressional power.

Harry Edwards, a respected Carter-appointed appeals judge, wrote that the Constitution forbids the Senate from imposing a supermajority rule for confirmations. Otherwise, "the Senate, acting unilaterally, could thereby increase its own power at the expense of the President" and "essentially take over the appointment process from the President." He concluded: "the Framers never intended for Congress to have such unchecked authority to impose supermajority voting requirements that fundamentally change the nature of our democratic processes." (He expressed less concern with legislative filibusters.)

History confirms Judge Edwards's constitutional interpretation. A Senate majority has never been denied its constitutional right to confirm judicial nominees--until now. The obstruction is as unprecedented as it is harmful.

For extra credit, read James Swanson’s piece “Filibustering the Constitution” in today’s Washington Times.