In a letter published by the New York Times today, two law professors suggest an alternative to filibuster when it comes to judicial nominations. Indeed, too many judicial nominations are delayed because of an ongoing filibuster in the Senate. Such delays in judicial nominations not only leave the federal courts empty but also frustrate the electorate.
In their proposal, delaying a judicial nomination would require a substantial minority of senators who would clearly state their reasons for their action. Moreover, such delay would only hold until the next Senate (replaced every other January).
Such proposal leaves me unconvinced. Though such measure would prevent too much delay in judicial nominations, we are not sure that the next Senate would not use another delay of that kind in order to block the nomination at stake. Such proposal only puts limits on the filibuster practice but does not solve its inherent gridlock issue.
Is there really an alternative to filibuster?