ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Senate Rules — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

I wrote a post a few days ago in response to a Roll Call opinion piece by Norman Ornstein. Mr. Ornstein read that confirmthem post, and responded by emailing some comments, and I've now put Ornstein's emailed comments at the end of my original post.

Moving along to other developments, the Washington Post has just come out with an editorial advocating that, absent a compromise acceptable now to all sides, the GOP should adopt a rule change that only becomes effective after George W. Bush leaves the White House. The Post argues (with superficial rationality but underlying glee) that the debate would then be purely about principle, since no one would know which party would benefit.

A much better approach than the Post's would be to immediately adopt a temporary solution that restores the tradition of not filibustering majority-supported nominees, but only for the next eight years, as Bob Dole has suggested (or until Democratic and Republican presidents shall have served for an equal time). And, we could discuss a separate rule that would take effect when the temporary rule expires. That way, tradition would be restored for the time being in a way that may equally benefit both parties, and we could have a more principled discussion about a permanent solution. Of course, I also have no problem with adopting a permanent solution now (it could always be changed later).

Anyway, Hugh Hewitt has this to say about the unprincipled behavior of a certain Dickensian senator from Nevada, and his accomplices:

A day after Senator Uriah Reid (D-Nev) brands the president a "loser" and then apologizes, a week after Senator Ken Salazar (D-Colo) labels Focus on the Family as the anti-Christ and then apologizes, and a month after Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVA) brands the Senate GOP as Hitler's heirs, Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) appeals to President Bush to bring moderation to the Republican side of the debate on the filibusters. Now that is rich. Wildly amusing and ineffective, but rich.

Especially when you consider this account of Senator Reid's appearance before high school students yesterday:

"Reid took students through a primer of the five most-disputed judicial nominees, arguing some were opposed to the 1973 Roe v. Wade case legalizing abortion. He charged others with trying to dismantle government programs like Social Security.

"'I don't want them. I think they're bad people,' Reid said of the nominees

"He described California Supreme Court Justice Janice Rogers Brown, one of the Bush nominees Republicans will probably float first for approval, as an African-American opposed by the Congressional Black Caucus.

"'She is a woman who wants to take us back to the Civil War days,' Reid said."

On the appalling scale, accusing a distinguished African-American jurist of wanting a return to the era of slavery is simply reprehensible. Perhaps Senator Schumer would like to issue a statement on Senator Reid's disgusting attack on Justice Brown and the other nominees?

Don't hold your breath.

UPDATE: Power Line criticizes the Post editorial, here.