ConfirmThem

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

Senator Salazar of Colorado wrote to President Bush today:

The decision to re-nominate these individuals will undoubtedly create the animosity and divisiveness between the President and the United States Senate as an institution that is not helpful to our Nation and will sidetrack our collective efforts to work on other crucial matters.

Surely the junior senator from Colorado is not anticipating that he himself will have animosity toward the president. Perhaps he is referring to Senator Byrd, who gave a speech today which included the following pessimistic remarks:

If we restrain debate on judges today, what will be next: the rights of the elderly to receive social security; the rights of the handicapped to be treated fairly; the rights of the poor to obtain a decent education? Will all debate soon fall before majority rule? Will the majority someday trample on the rights of lumber companies to harvest timber, or the rights of mining companies to mine silver, coal, or iron ore? What about the rights of energy companies to drill for new sources of oil and gas? How will the insurance, banking, and securities industries fare when a majority can move against their interests and prevail by a simple majority vote? What about farmers who can be forced to lose their subsidies, or Western Senators who will no longer be able to stop a majority determined to wrest control of ranchers' precious water or grazing rights? With no right of debate, what will forestall plain muscle and mob rule?

Yikes, I didn't know that limiting debate on each judicial nominee --- to, say, one year of debate apiece --- might imperil all those other things. It's curious that Senator Byrd didn't object to "fast track" limitations on debate for trade agreements that were put in place long ago; those debate limitations might actually impact the things the senator listed in his speech today. Oh, by the way, Byrd also compared Senator Frist to Hitler.