Most Popular White Papers
Content provided in partnership with
West Virginia senator Robert Byrd, upset about Republican plans to end the filibustering of judges, called the move Hitlerian
National Review, March 28, 2005
* West Virginia senator Robert Byrd, upset about Republican plans to end the filibustering of judges, called the move Hitlerian. To force up-or-down votes on judges would be to eviscerate the rule of law, just as Nazi Germany did. The resulting (and justified) uproar over the noxious Hitler comment managed to obscure the absurdity of everything else the senator said.
Byrd's argument is that ending filibusters would "mute dissent and gag opposition voices" and "rob a senator of the right to speak out against an overreaching executive branch or a wrongheaded policy." We are not persuaded that Senate Republicans should formally restrict the filibuster. But the free-speech argument makes no sense. Are we to believe that when Byrd was in the majority, and tried on several occasions to restrict the filibuster, he was trying to "gag" the opposition? Whether or not the Senate decides to modify its procedures, senators are going to retain the right to vote against any nominee or bill--and to speak out, as hysterically as they wish.
COPYRIGHT 2005 National Review, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2008 Gale, Cengage Learning
Find Research Guides for:
Find Featured Titles for: Reference
- Academe
- African American Review
- African Arts
- African Studies Review
- Afro-Americans in New York Life and History
- Alabama Heritage
- Alabama Review
- American Mathematical Monthly, The
- Anglican Theological Review
- Annals of Dyslexia
- Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ)
- Auk, The
- Australian Journal of Anthropology, The
- Christian Century
- Natural History