How We Got Here

The time has come for hard ball. The dem/leftists continue their obstructionism of judicial nominees. It appears that Frist has the votes to eliminate the filibustering of judicial nominees and this will return the confirmation process back to the simply majority it should be. Of course there will be the whining and gnashing of teeth from the left and their allies in the MSM. No wherein the liberal MSM will you see mention of the fact that back in 1995, the dem/leftists, led by Byrd, Kennedy, Boxer, etal, wanted to do away with the filibuster all together. Even the New York Times was on board then. What a difference 10 years and a few elections make. Commentary at OpinionJournal delves into this matter.

"The judicial filibuster of the last two years marks another political escalation--this time twisting a procedure used historically for the most important legislative debates into an abuse of the Senate's advise-and-consent responsibility. Had their nominations been allowed to go to the floor, every one of the 10 men and women filibustered in the last two years would have been confirmed.

The audacity of the Democrats' radicalism is illustrated by the breadth of their claims against the nominees. It isn't just one nominee they object to; it's 10, and counting. It isn't just abortion they're worried about but the entire range of constitutional law.

Priscilla Owen is said to be a judicial "activist" for a decision interpreting Texas's law regarding parental notification of teens seeking abortions. Janice Rogers Brown is "against" affirmative action and speaks bluntly in public. Brett Kavanaugh is portrayed as a radical for defending executive privilege. William Pryor is hit on the First Amendment. Richard Griffin is "anti-union" and "anti-worker." William Myers is "hostile" to the environment. Every one is labeled an "extremist" and unacceptable no matter their experience or their "well qualified" ABA rating."

Here is the crux of the matter. It has nothing to do with qualifications, but everything to do with a political agenda. For years the left has been dependent on an activist judiciary to implement their agenda. An agenda that they can not implement through legislation. No longer does the ABA rating mean anything.

"This is at its core a political fight, and elections ought to mean something. Republicans have gained Senate seats in two consecutive elections in which judicial nominations were among the most important issues, including against the Senate Minority Leader. The one Democrat from a red state who won last year, Ken Salazar of Colorado, did so by promising to oppose judicial filibusters; he now seems to have changed his mind after sipping the Beltway's partisan punch.

Perhaps the coming showdown will lead to more political bitterness, but we doubt Democrats will be able to follow through on their pledge to shut down the Senate; the public wants other things done. And who knows? If Democrats can't succeed any longer in legislating through the courts, maybe they'll even return to trying to win power the old-fashioned way, through elections."

The dem/leftists failed to learn from the recent defeat of their lead obstructionist, Tommy Daschle. I have posted notes to Harry Ried and Nacy Pelosi, suggesting that if they want to control who gets to the federal bench, they should get more of their party elected. That might also help them pass their agenda the proper way, through legislation. But as long as they think they can do it through the judiciary, do not expect them to propose legislation. It is much safer for them that way. - Sailor