Nuclear War: A Modest Counter-Proposal

Letter sent to Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) through his website:

I believe in the principle that judicial nominees endorsed by the Judiciary Committee should be entitled ultimately to votes of the full Senate; however, the cost is too high for the country if the Senate majority will insist on breaking the rules--on changing the Senate's rules themselves--in order to force cloture on the debate over this small number of nominations. In other words, there are principles on both sides of the argument, but the potential cost to the legislative potential of this Congress will harm all: both major parties, and the public wellbeing.

I believe that one must "show the door" to one's opponents in a lose-lose situation such as this case, and I think that you can do that here. The way out is a compromise in which Democrats will agree to rules permitting "eventual" vote on these few stalled nominees (and they will no doubt have a long debate beforehand on each and every one), tightening the requirements for future nominees to emerge from Committee (a 60% majority), and laying a foundation for future bipartisan cooperation by the majority's leadership inviting the Democrats to take the lead--for a change--in developing and offering "fair and balanced" electoral reform legislation.

The proposal I put forth above suggesting we raise the bar for advancing judiciary nominees for any lifetime position out of Committee would put the issue where it properly belongs. This would require a rules change or two, probably; unlike the proposal to limit debate across the board on judicial nominees, it could probably gain a 2/3 majority.

The objective of fair and balanced electoral reform legislation would be to ensure higher quality (in terms of confidence in counts, and consistency in the principles of eligibility to vote in federal elections) at much lower cost to the public. It would need to be nonpartisan legislation, and its result would be as good as a tax cut to the American people! Better, in that it would have a permanent benefit in terms of the legitimacy with which the public views our electoral process.