The Nuclear Option and Ethics

Much has been made recently over Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's deliberations on whether or not to end democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominations. And while most of the discussions have centered on whether the scheme would work and its political consequences, very little consideration has been given as to whether the scheme is ethical.

Filibusters in the Senate have been in existence for over 200 years. The current rule requiring 60 votes to end debate have been in place since 1917. This rule has allowed the minority party to exercise, on rare occasions, the ability to block legislation or appointments with which they vehemently disagree. Both Republicans and Democrats have used the 60/40 rule to block judicial nominations.

However, Republicans now feel that the rules should no longer apply to them. Frist is contemplating eliminating the Senate rule to push through Bush's extremist judges, perhaps one to the Supreme Court. Some Republicans, to their credit, are wary of this idea.

There is a reason people are calling this the "nuclear option." It would signal the end of over 200 years of tradition and the end of a rule that has existed for 87 years. It would signal that Republicans no longer care about the tradition of the Senate. But most of all, it would signal that Republicans no longer feel the rules apply to them.

People who don't like to follow the rules are childish and selfish. Their own gratification is more important that the social compact. Republicans want to break the social compact for their own personal gains. Breaking the social compact for such selfish reasons is unethical, and it should be noted as such.