The nuclear option and the fillibuster are not concepts which generally capture the imagination of the American public. Indeed, to many the very concept of fillibuster might seem antithetical to democracy as the practice is usually induced by an individual or group with a minority opinion.
However, there was a time when the practice of fillibuster was much more respected in the United States. For evidence of this time in American history, one needs look no further than Frank Capra's classic, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The climactic scene of the movie has our hero, Jefferson Smith, taking over the Senate floor in a fillibuster that lasts day and night to clear his good name and defeat the political machine of Jim Taylor.
I watched that movie again just last night. Wonderful movie. In fact, it is said it was President Reagan's favorite movie. The beauty of this movie is that we never know which political party Smith belongs to. Unlike so many movies today, there's no partisanship in its message. The message is a truly American message about what our republic stands for and about the triumph of good men over corruption.
What really struck me were Smith's words. They could as easily be the words of a Democratic Senator in the upcoming battle over judicial nominees. "'Cause I wouldn't give you a red cent for ALL your fine rules, without there was some plain every-day, common kindness under 'em--and
a little looking-out for the next fella. Yes--pretty important, all that. Just happens to be blood and bone and sinew of this democracy that some great man handed down to the human race--! That's all!"
And that's exactly what this is about--looking out for the "next fella" as Smith put it. Sure, we could go quietly, not say our peace and allowing the Republicans to pass through their nominees without a fight. But we'd be letting down the people of this great country, most of whom would not approve of the type of nominees being put forth.
We cannot allow the Republicans to put through judges who will not stand up for the fundamental rights that have been recognized in the Constitution, including the right to privacy. As Smith stated " --there just can't be any compromise with inalienable rights like life and liberty. That's about the only thing I know for sure--and that's about all I got up on this floor to say."
And we cannot allow the Republicans to put through judges who will not stand up for basic human rights and against torture. As Smith also stated in that fillibuster scene, "Now, you're not gonna have a country that makes these kinds of rules WORK, if you haven't got men who've learned to tell human rights from a punch in the nose."
In that movie, Jefferson Smith was just one man, an extreme minority. And yet he stood up and controlled the floor and said his peace. Why? Because the Senate is supposed to be a chamber where decisions are fully thought through. In order to accomplish this, even a minority of one man must have the ability to speak when he feels the other 99 are disregarding the Constitution and the will of the people. He must have the ability to convince his fellow Senators that he is right and they have been wrong. When we eliminate the ability of each Senator to speak his peace, we eliminate the value of the advice and consent of the Senate on judicial nominations.
There is a reason Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was such a popular movie and why the fillibuster was once so popular. The People of this great nation want someone to stand up for them and to stand up for their rights. The people know that at times the majority in the Senate, as a political body, will not have the courage to stand for what is right because of the pressures to get re-elected or because of pressures from their party or special interests. But the fillibuster gives them the hope that at least one man or woman will.