This item in Monday’s Washington Post, which was eagerly brought to my attention by Lindsey Graham’s office, merely states what I have assumed from the beginning to be the truth of the matter: That the compromise forced upon the Senate by the "Gang of 14" was no sweet deal for the Democrats — at least, not for the ideologues on the left wing of the party.
I have been puzzled in recent weeks both by the ideologues of the right who have screamed bloody murder over the filibuster compromise, and by the liberals who warmly embraced it. It seems obvious that the terms the group agreed to, combined with the personalities involved and the political dynamics that made the deal possible — prevent a filibuster on a Supreme Court nominee for merely ideological causes. You’d pretty much have to have moral turpitude involved for this coalition to allow the Democrats to obstruct indefinitely. (I’m far from the only one who’s realized this. The New Republic fretted over the deal because they knew how it would tie liberal hands, even as Democratic Party leaders were crowing publicly about the compromise.)
Given that standard. I suppose we’ll have to brace ourselves for tales of porno-film watching and remarks about Coke cans. I’m certainly not up for that, but deal or no deal, I doubt we’ll ever have a reasonable, tasteful, restrained confirmation process as long as Roe v. Wade continues to force bitter political debate into this most unseemly of venues.
Related Posts
Why is the Senate an “unseemly” venue? Is not hashing out a candidate’s credibility and fitness for the position part of fulfilling their constitutional duty to provide “advice and consent” to the President?
The Senate is a fine venue, because it is part of one of the political branches. What is unseemly is having pitched battles between left and right regarding the issue that divides them most bitterly within the context of judicial selection.
We ought to be choosing justices based upon their characters and their knowledge of and commitment to the law, not what they might or might not do regarding abortion.
Fair enough. Gotta love the wedge issues. (Sigh.)
“We ought to be choosing justices based upon their characters and their knowledge of and commitment to the law, not what they might or might not do regarding abortion.”
Exactly. I wish I could remember who wrote it, but a recent column I read stated that applying any kind of policy litmus test to a nominee would be tantamount to asking that nominee to decide cases that haven’t even come before the court yet, without having seen all the facts of those particular cases. The column finished by asking how you would like to go before a judge whose mind was already made up.
The RINO sell out deal lasted 48 hours before the Democrats filibustered Bolton.
Senator Graham has turned out to be all talk, and no action. He is sand in the gears.
I enjoyed your site so much so i have to say it to you. through others who went there: http://skys.jp/blog/archives/200504/06-1228.php , Coin World magazine