It seems that Barbara Boxer wants to change the Constitution to require a supermajority for judicial confirmation. Of course, though all of a sudden the process of judicial confirmation we've used for 200+ years is inadequate, she hasn't actually proposed a change to the Constitution. In truth, the Constitution is irrelevant to her. It doesn't matter to her what the law of the land actually says (which is, that judicial confirmation only requires a simple majority, as opposed to the very limited number of actions that require a super majority), only what she feels like: "There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so?" (Via Glenn.)
Of course, I could respect her if she really did believe that judicial confirmation should always require a super vote. If she had actually proposed a change to the Constitution, or even to Senate rules, to require a super majority, I could respect that. But in reality she wants to do whatever's politically expedient at the time, damn law and precedent. As Democratic power has waned, the courts are the one avenue they hope to be able to continue their agenda, and as Captain Ed puts it, the filibuster is their "back-door strategy" to prevent change they don't like. If Boxer's protest was built on principle I could respect it. Rather, it's the grossest form of politically expedient special pleading.
Friday, March 18, 2005
Permalink
Feel free to post a comment below. Please see my comment policy.
Formatting Rules (No HTML):