In his March 4 op-ed column, " 'Nuking' Free Speech," Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) voiced his opposition to a plan to restore Senate traditions and the constitutional authority of a majority of senators to confirm the president's judicial nominees.
He said that restoring this Senate tradition could "destroy the Senate's very essence -- the constitutional privilege of free speech and debate." But history -- and Mr. Byrd's own actions -- prove otherwise.
In 1979 Mr. Byrd concluded that "Congress is not obliged to be bound by the dead hand of the past," that senators can "change an abominable rule by a majority vote" and that "it is in the interests of the Senate and in the interests of the nation that the majority must work its will." He also led the creation of precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980 and 1987 to stop filibusters and other delaying tactics previously allowed under Senate rules or precedents.
Mr. Byrd's use of such tactics did not stifle free speech then; exercising Senate powers he pioneered will not stifle it now. It is past time to restore Senate traditions and to ensure that the rules for confirming federal judges by majority vote remain the same, regardless of which party controls the White House and the Senate.
JOHN CORNYN
U.S. Senator (R-Tex.)
Washington
•
Weighing in on the "nuclear option," Sen. Robert C. Byrd said it would "mute dissent and gag opposition voices." He failed to explain why this is more dangerous than current Senate rules that allow 60 senators to do just that -- end filibusters and "gag opposition voices."
Mr. Byrd noted that "President Bush has renominated 20 men and women to the federal bench, seven of whom the Senate rejected last year." In fact, not one of the seven nominees to whom he referred was "rejected" by the Senate last year. None was even voted on by the full body. That is the point of the nuclear option -- to force senators from both parties to live by the Constitution and afford the president's nominees an up-or-down vote by the full Senate.
ROYAL S. DELLINGER
Rockville
•
Sen. Robert C. Byrd was not entirely correct in saying that "the Framers created an institution designed not for speed or efficiency but as a place where mature wisdom would reside." While I believe that the Framers hoped that mature wisdom would reside in the House and the Senate, the Constitution is largely silent as to their rules, leaving it for the representatives and senators to establish operating procedures.
Though Senate Republicans may move to limit the blocking of judicial nominees by the Democrats, it is incorrect to infer that their actions would be unconstitutional and not within the intent of the Framers.
STEVEN GEIGER
Overland Park, Kan.
