CNN Inside Politics - Transcript

CNN Inside Politics - Transcript
4/27/2005

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

DOBBS: In our face off tonight, the intense Senate battle over President Bush's judicial nominees and the filibuster. Should we keep the filibuster or should we not? Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist has said Republicans are considering changing Senate rules to nullify the filibuster. My guest tonight says the so-called nuclear option, as it is put, would do great damage to the Senate. Senator Dick Durbin of Illinois is the minority whip, and joins us from Capitol Hill.

Senator, it is great to have you here.

SEN. DICK DURBIN (D), ILLINOIS: Good to be with you, Lou. DOBBS: Let's start first with the idea of tying up a nomination, whether it be for the district, appellate, or Supreme, court. Is it really appropriate to filibuster a nomination and deny a vote, an up and down vote, to the entire Senate?

DURBIN: From the beginning of time in the United States Senate, we have had a filibuster, and the idea is, that any senator, any member of the minority, can stand up and speak, and to make that senator sit down and go to a vote, you need an extraordinary majority. So, if I object to a bill or nomination to a cabinet position or to a judgeship, I can filibuster that. And if 60 members of the Senate say it's time for debate to end, sit down, Senator Durbin, they have the power to do it.

Senator Frist wants to change that rule for the first time in 214 years,and I think it's a mistake. It really is changing the rules in the middle of the game. It's violating a basic tradition and principal in the Senate that we've honored since the founding fathers created it.

DOBBS: Or, at least since 1806. In point of fact, the number of votes were changed in 1919, and the-with cloture, giving the opportunity to end filibuster. Again, with the Byrd amendment, reducing it from 67 to 60 votes.

DURBIN: That's right.

DOBBS: At what point do you and the Senate just say, the majority does rule and, historically, if you are a fan of history, as you suggest, Senator, the fact is that so many important initiatives within the U.S. Senate, including civil rights, have been forestalled by filibuster.

DURBIN: But, Lou, see, that's why the Senate is so unique. Two senators from every state. Two senators from New York. Two senators from Rhode Island, two from Delaware, two from California-it's because it was designed to protect the minority, and the rules have created the filibuster because it forces compromise and it forces bipartisanship. You have to reach across the aisle for controversial nominees and controversial bills to build a bipartisan coalition. That's why the Senate is so unique, and to change that, to throw that away because President Bush has had only 95 percent of his nominees approved by the Senate, I think is a serious mistake.

DOBBS: Yes, and let me be clear, Senator, I'm not suggesting this because I think that every one of the nominees of President Bush is appropriate or inappropriate for that matter, whether Democrat or Republican. It just seems to me that, under the Constitution, which is a fairly unique document in its own way, calling upon the Senate for advise-and-consent, not filibuster, it seems to me that the majority rule in the Senate would be an appropriate pathway to follow, for both Democrats and Republicans, the minority party and the majority party over time. Why not?

DURBIN: Well, because, for two centuries, the Senate has had this tradition. It basically says that the checks and balances of Senate mean something, and the Senate, as an institution, will give each senator the power to stand up, as Mr. Smith went to Washington in Jimmy Stewart's great movie, to fight for something they believe in. And, over time, as you mentioned, we've said, well, 60 senators ought to be able to shut down a filibuster. I think that's reasonable. It requires bipartisanship. And when it comes to a nominee looking for a lifetime position on the court, we want to make sure those men and women are moderate, that they are responsive to the values and the needs of America.

DOBBS: So moderate becomes the litmus test?

DURBIN: I think it's an important test.

DOBBS: You don't want a full commitment to your ideology or the opposing party?

DURBIN: Well, I don't think it's healthy. When it comes to a judge, you've got to find someone who's going to interpret the law as close as they can to the accuracy of the law, rather than push a political agenda from the left or from the right.

DOBBS: Senator Dick Durbin, we thank you for being here tonight. Appreciate it.

DURBIN: Thank you, Lou.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/27/ldt.01.html