Orrin Hatch: “So in a sense it was not even known as a filibuster at that time. Nevertheless, they had the right to speak. To follow…”

“So in a sense it was not even known as a filibuster at that time. Nevertheless, they had the right to speak. To follow up on what you just said, we heard repeatedly from liberal interest groups that we must maintain the filibuster to maintain ``checks and balances.'' My understanding of the Constitution's checks and balances is that they were designed to enable one branch of Government to restrain another branch of Government. Are there really any constitutional checks that empower a minority within one of those branches to prevent the other branch from functioning properly? Mr. McCONNELL. Well, my friend from Utah is again entirely correct. The term ``checks and balances'' has actually nothing to do with what happened to circuit court appointments during the previous Congress. The term ``checks and balances'' means institutional checks against each other, the Congress versus the President, the judiciary versus both--the balance of power among the branches of Government. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the process to which the Senate has been subjected in the last few years. It is simply a term that is inapplicable to the dilemma in which we find ourselves now.”