'Nuclear option' is partisan politics

The Frist Center Filibuster once again took center stage Wednesday as the "Hardball" crew descended on campus, sparking a rally of some three hundred students, faculty and members of the local community. The following day, supporters rejoiced as we passed our 200th consecutive hour of filibustering.

Frist Filibusterers come in all flavors — Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans and Independents. I would like to point out that in the sea of rally signs at the Tuesday frenzy, the pro-filibuster side — the vast majority of the demonstrators — did not have a single partisan sign. We do not share an ideological agenda, and many of us involved in the movement did not even know one another personally prior to the beginning of the filibuster on April 26.

We want to stress, above all, that in spite of all the national media attention, we have not forgotten our core belief — that the checks and balances of our democracy should not be trampled on for short-term political gain. Since our nation's inception, the filibuster has prevented the tyranny of the majority from dictating the appointments of judicial nominees which, unlike legislation, cannot be overturned or challenged in the next Congress. The filibuster encourages compromise and filters out extremist and unqualified nominees on both sides of the aisle. The appropriately-named "nuclear option" that Senator Bill Frist '74 wants to impose on the U.S. Senate would set a dangerous precedent that would undermine the Senate's ability to function as a truly deliberative body.

We should not forget how high the stakes are and what the future of our country will be if we become a one-party state dominated by an extremist judiciary. How healthy will our democracy be if one of the few protections for the minority is destroyed because the majority party's leadership is upset that 95.5 percent and not 100 percent of President Bush's judicial nominees are confirmed?

What will the ramifications be if the filibuster cannot be used to prevent the lifelong federal appointment of a judge, Priscilla Owen, who accepted contributions from Halliburton and Enron without recusing herself in cases involving these companies? Should we open the doors for William Myers, who has never been a judge or participated in a jury trial, and whose only apparent qualification is his staunch anti-environmentalism and his unwavering record of siding with industry over the environment, Native Americans and the public good? Should we overturn a 200-year-old check and balance for William Haynes, who was an architect of the Bush administration's policies regarding "illegal combatants" and detention centers that violate virtually every principle of international law? These are the sorts of individuals we simply cannot afford to have nominated to lifelong federal judgeships.

Senator Frist's potential coup appears even more pernicious when we consider that Supreme Court justices, whose decisions, unlike those of appellate court judges, cannot be overturned, may be confirmed without input from the minority in the Senate.

Congressman Rush Holt put it best during his visit to the Frist Center filibuster last Friday. He told the crowd that any fool can design a system of government run by the majority. The beauty of our system is that it allows a minority of elected officials, which may often speak for the majority of the population on a given issue, a say in how our government is run. After reading from "Aesop's Fables," Holt summed up the lessons of the fables he read: "Be careful what you wish for." Jason Vagliano is one of the organizers of the Frist filibuster. He can be reached at vagliano@princeton.edu.