William Pryor: “basically what Robert Caro points out in this letter is: Several members of the Senate have asked me whether my research…”

“basically what Robert Caro points out in this letter is: Several members of the Senate have asked me whether my research on the history of the Senate sheds light on the current debate over the role of the Senate with respect to President Bush's judicial nominations. Defining the right of extended debate is always tricky. If it is being used against you, it is a vicious weapon of obstruction whose use in a democracy is unconscionable. If it is you who is using that weapon, it is a great one to have in your arsenal. I think right there we see the tension Mr. Caro captured so well in his book, but here again he has captured it and framed up the issue very well for us. The right of the filibuster or unlimited debate is something that is viewed very differently, depending which side of the filibuster you are on. It has historically in this country been used time and time again for almost everything under the Sun--sometimes successfully, sometimes not successfully. One thing he talks about is: Nonetheless, great care should be taken in placing new restrictions on that right. Senators who are considering doing so should understand that they will be taking a step that has significant implications for the balance of powers created under the Constitution, and also for another very fundamental concern in a democracy: the balance between majority and minority rights.”