ConfirmThem

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

According to The Hill, Senator Trent Lott says "it wouldn’t be accurate to say that a deal is close."

Assuming there is no deal, Ross Baker of Rutgers University writes (in a USA Today column today) that it would be a Pyrrhic victory if the Senate majority insists upon providing advice and consent for appellate and Supreme Court nominees. Baker explains:

Democrats would slow-walk executive nominations, refuse to give unanimous consent that is required under Senate rules to routine requests that leaders use to expedite business, and generally conduct a kind of low-level guerrilla warfare that might not be noticed by the public but would make the Senate a most unpleasant place to work.

Hmm. Should the Senate perform the constitutional duty of advice and consent, and restore the centuries-old tradition of up-or-down votes for majority-supported judicial nominees --- or should the Senate instead be scared witless by a bit of unpleasantness that wouldn't even be perceptible to the public? Tough choice.