- Republican Wins Money Race in New York Special
- Congressional Hits and Misses: Week of April 20, 2015
- Pelosi Reacts to Death of Al Qaida Hostages
- Pelosi Calls Emerging Trade Deal a 'Pothole'
- Freshman's Campaign Issue Gets D.C. Attention
Nobody ever accused Bill Armstrong of being an ideological squish. Or a liberal.
Maybe that’s why it’s so noteworthy that the former two-term United States Senator from Colorado — who was about as conservative as any Member during his 18 years in Congress — says that he is “deeply skeptical” about the Republican effort to eliminate the filibuster during the process of confirming judges.
Armstrong, who served in the Colorado Legislature and in the U.S. House of Representatives before serving two terms in the Senate, told me recently that while he thinks there should be a vote on President Bush’s judges, he also believes that Senate Republicans have moved too far, too fast on the so-called “nuclear” option.
“Having served in the majority and in the minority, I know that it’s worthwhile to have the minority empowered. As a conservative, I think there is a value to having a constraint on the majority,” he says. Armstrong notes that conservatives would surely like to be able to filibuster federal judges appointed by a Democratic president who favor gay marriage and other liberal policies.
Armstrong, who almost certainly would have been re-elected in 1990 had he sought a third term, says he understands the “tremendous frustration” that Republicans and conservatives feel about getting Bush-selected judges approved. But he doesn’t believe that Senate Republicans have exhausted all options when it comes to getting the president’s judicial nominees confirmed by the Senate.
“Before making an important change, I wouldn’t rush into it until I had an opportunity to test the will of the people on both sides,” he says. “We haven’t seen any attempt on the part of either side to make any sacrifice, whether it involves missing a fundraiser or missing an opportunity to go back home for the weekend.”
What kind of sacrifice is Armstrong calling for? He suggests that the Republicans force Senate Democrats to carry on an old-fashioned filibuster.
Armstrong believes an old-fashioned filibuster would test the will of each side and focus the public’s attention on both matters — on the judges themselves and on the Democrats’ tactic of blocking Senate business. He believes that only after the Republicans exhaust all options at their disposal should they even consider something as rash as the nuclear option.
Armstrong may or may not be correct in believing that bringing back a real, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” filibuster would resolve the judicial stalemate. But it’s probably worth a shot.
I’ll admit that one of the refreshing things about Armstrong’s comments is the principled consistency of his views. Neither of the two parties can be accused of such consistency.