ConfirmThem

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

"The Connection" on public radio had a very long show April 26 that included interviews with former Senators Alan Simpson and John Breaux, Professor Jonathan Turley, and reporter Gail Chaddock.

In a nutshell, Simpson emphasized that he is anti-nuclear-option, and pro-choice on abortion, and he also anticipated a boomerang effect if the GOP tries to eliminate the judicial nomination filibusters. Breaux did not sound very different from Simpson, and Breaux put much misplaced reliance upon the recent bogus Washington Poll in order to argue that citizens favor the ability of a Senate minority to filibuster judicial nominees. Then Jonathan Turley repeatedly said that Attorney General Gonzales had once accused nominee Priscilla Owen of having been an “activist" in a parental notification case, even though Gonzales did not do that, and even though Turley previously said that Justice Owen had interpreted the Texas "parental notification law in a way that was plausible." Finally, Reporter Gail Chaddock expressed concern about Senator Schumer's theory that it's okay for the Senate to screen judges on ideological grounds (Schumer has held a hearing back in 2003 to bolster that theory); Chaddock said that it probably would not be a good idea for people to go into a courtroom and see judges wearing wearing red robes or blue robes depending on their ideaology. Chaddock is 100% right about that! Thanks to How Appealing for making us aware of this radio program.

Incidentally, Rich Lowry had a post at "The Corner" responding to the concern that getting rid of nomination filibusters might make the Senate more like the House. Lowry noted that, if Democrats carry out their threat to slowdown the Senate, then that will make that body even more Senatorial, not less.