ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo gave the Democrats' radio address, and Power Line addresses the address:

[Cuomo's] big lie is that Republicans, not Democrats, are looking to use the courts to obtain specific policy outcomes unavailable to them through the political process. In reality, of course, the Republicans favor a judiciary that will grant serious deference to the wishes of our citizens (though not Europeans) as expressed through legislatures. Liberals, who have fared rather poorly when it comes to electing legislators and executives, consistently favor overturning "political" outcomes.
....
Cuomo stands history on its head; as in the classic instances of Roe v Wade and gay marriage, it has always been the Democrats, never the Republicans, who have used the federal courts to force policies on the American people that the "proper political bodies" won't vote for.

Next he stands the meaning of the filibuster on its head, pretending that the device is intended to assure "the fullest possible debate" before a judicial nominee "takes his or her place on the bench." In reality, as Harry Reid explicitly admitted just last week, the filibuster has nothing to do with assuring ample debate; that's why he rejected the Republican compromise that offered 100 hours of debate....

Finally, he [Cuomo] stands the Constitution on its head with the absurd suggestion tbat the minority should run the Senate rather than the majority, apparently on the theory that majority rule is per se tyrannical. It's hard to respond to that except by saying, "Huh?" And he concludes with a stunning non sequitur: Senate Democrats represent more people than Senate Republicans; therefore it's appropriate for the minority Democrats to get their way. We do, of course, have a body where votes are apportioned on the basis of population; it's called the House of Representatives. But population is completely irrelevant to the Senate. It's also irrelevant to the filibuster, which can just as easily be implemented by Senators from the twenty smallest states. And if the question is, where do most Americans stand on the question of who gets to appoint judges to the federal bench, they answered that question last November, when President Bush won by something like three million votes.

For more info about who represents more voters, see here. And, Jack Kelly in the Toledo Blade observes that having lots of Republicans in the Senate should add up to results:

THE only thing harder to find in the U.S. Senate these days than a Democrat with a conscience is a Republican with a spine.
....
The filibuster is an extra-constitutional obstructionist tactic that has been used mostly to block civil rights legislation. Many of the Democrats defending it now tried to end it a decade ago. Yet dithering by Senate Majority Waffler Bill Frist of Tennessee has permitted Democrats to gain the upper hand in the public relations battle.

Credit for the Republican victory last fall goes to Republican voters, not GOP officeholders. If Republican "leaders" want to maintain their allegiance, they'd better start showing some leadership, pronto.

Meantime, Scrappleface satirically reports as follows:

Republicans in the House and Senate today introduced bills which would redefine the word "majority" to mean "a group compelled to do the will of a smaller group."

The change in definition is designed to bring the word back in line with current usage and practice, according to an unnamed Senate source.

The new definition of majority should help Republicans "deflect criticism from staunch conservatives who believe the antiquated, intolerant concept that 'majority rule' requires the more numerous group to prevail," the source said.

Seriously, filibustering legislation allows a minority to preserve the status quo by keeping the law as it is. In contrast, filibustering judicial nominees allows a minority to change the status quo, by demanding judges who will do their bidding. The latter power is much more significant. So, the new Scrappleface definition of "majority" would be very appropriate, if the GOP caves on judicial nominations. Hugh Hewitt recently interviewed Sen. Mitch McConnell, and fortunately there doesn't seem to be a GOP inclination to cave in.