Dole weighs in again on filibuster

Bob Dole was used by Democrats to argue against "the nuclear option" when he said on April 12 that the Republicans should not change Senate rules to override Democrats obstruction of federal judicial nominees.

Republicans should be very careful before they start "tinkering with the rules" of the Senate, Dole said during a radio interview, because the Senate is not always going to be controlled by the GOP.
"You want to think down the road," Dole told National Public Radio. "The Senate's going to change. It's not always going to be Republican. It changes back and forth. History shows that."

That comes from a Cox News report. They went on:

Dole should know. During his 28 years in the Senate, the Kansas Republican served as the majority leader twice, from 1984 to 1986 and from 1994 to 1996, assuming the role of minority leader during the eight years in between, when Democrats were the majority.

Dole is the latest senior Republican to advise his party's Senate leadership to forego a proposed change in the rules that would make it easier for the GOP to end the filibuster.

But then, two weeks later, Dole had done some research, and he wrote an op-ed for the New York Times on April 26.

I have publicly urged caution in this matter. Amending the Senate rules over the objection of a substantial minority should be the option of last resort. I still hold out hope that the two Senate leaders will find a way to ensure that senators have the opportunity to fulfill their constitutional duty to offer "advice and consent" on the president's judicial nominees while protecting minority rights. Time has not yet run out.

But let's be honest: By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.

Dole then made it be known where he stood.

When I was a leader in the Senate, a judicial filibuster was not part of my procedural playbook. Asking a senator to filibuster a judicial nomination was considered an abrogation of some 200 years of Senate tradition...

...Although the Democrats don't like to admit it, in the past they have voted to end delaying tactics previously allowed under Senate rules or precedents. In fact, one of today's leading opponents of changing the Senate's rules, Senator Robert Byrd, was once a proponent of doing so, and on several occasions altered Senate rules through majoritarian means. I have great respect for Senator Byrd, but Senate Republicans are simply exploring the procedural road map that he himself helped create.

In the coming days, I hope changing the Senate's rules won't be necessary, but Senator Frist will be fully justified in doing so if he believes he has exhausted every effort at compromise. Of course, there is an easier solution to the impasse: Democrats can stop playing their obstruction game and let President Bush's judicial nominees receive what they are entitled to: an up-or-down vote on the floor of the world's greatest deliberative body.

Today, Dole wrote another piece for the Washington Times in which he sticks the knife in a little deeper. Again, what is ironic about all this is that the Democrats tried to use Dole's words as ammo against Frist by saying, "See, one of the Senate's veterans, who is very wise and knowledgeable, says don't do it."

By creating a new 60-vote threshold for confirming judicial nominees, today's Senate Democrats have abandoned more than 200 years of Senate tradition.
For the first time, judicial nominees with clear majority support are denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor through an unprecedented use of the filibuster. This is not a misrepresentation of history; it's a fact.