ConfirmThem

By Lorie Byrd Posted in Fillibuster — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

Andrew Hyman (who is a brilliant one man blogging machine) commented here recently about the argument that Kathryn Jean Lopez made at National Review that judicial nominees should have been made a bigger issue by Republicans in the recent elections. Andrew argued that Republicans did the right thing by not making a bigger issue out of the issue of judges. His arguments, which I hope I characterize here properly, are twofold.

First he makes the point that it is already tough enough to be a nominee without the extra grief the attention of campaign commercials featuring specific individuals would add to that ordeal.

The second, and more important, point he makes is that public attention and pressure could garner enough votes to overcome a filibuster, but that would, in some ways, make the filibuster a normal, accepted fixture of the confirmation process.

It is pretty hard to argue with either one of those points. My opinion for some time now, however, has been that the public should know what is going on in the judiciary confirmation process. I argued in May that judges should be a campaign issue and Democrats should be called to account for their behavior, and I asked if Senate candidates would run on the issue of the judiciary committee memos. As far as I am aware, none did.

In September, I agreed with Kathryn Jean Lopez's article linked to by Andrew, that judges should be a big campaign issue. In December I even suggested that a Swiftboat Vet type 527 group should run commercials to educate the public about the issue of judicial confirmations. In January, I again argued that the public should know about the judiciary committee memos. The opinions I expressed in the posts linked here are obviously ones that I have held for a while with some intensity.

While I agree with Andrew's arguments, I have an instinctive, and passionate, gut feeling about this issue. I think that the public deserves to know about what I believe has been character assassination and gutter politics on the part of many Democrats in the Senate on the issue of judicial nominations.

Now that the subject has shifted mainly to the question of the appropriateness, and even the constitutionality, of the filibuster, the arguments become legal ones. That makes it even harder for the general public to understand or connect with the subject. While questions of legality and procedure are important, they are not the story. The story is one of partisan politics and character assassination and that should not be forgotten in the debate over the filibuster.

(This is cross posted at Polipundit.com.)