Patterico's Pontifications


Captain Ed on Judicial Filibusters

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:13 am

Captain Ed has a couple of good posts about the crisis over judicial appointments.

First, he reports that John McCain has said he will vote against the nuclear option.

This one makes sense. First McCain kills our First Amendment rights. Then he refuses to fight for judges who might reinstall them.

We’re supposed to be surprised?

Second, Ed suggests that we not give another dime to the Republican party, if it remains so gutless that it won’t push President Bush’s nominees through.

I’m torn on this one. Since I consider the need for good judges to be one of the country’s most pressing issues, I am tempted to join Ed’s call. My only concern is that it could adversely affect the war on terror if we refuse to support Republicans against Democrats who would turn tail and run. That would have been a disaster in the last presidential election, and I’m not sure it’s a good idea now.

But it is certain that some action is necessary. A phone call to the offices of Senate Republicans on the fence about the nuclear option might be a nice start. Hugh Hewitt says they are Senators Alexander, Chafee, Collins, Hagel, Snowe, Sununu and Warner. Via Hugh, the contact info is here.

And we should all tell John McCain that he can go to hell.

7 Responses to “Captain Ed on Judicial Filibusters”

  1. You should check out:
    We’d love to know what you think. Leave comments!

    Christian (0d6dac)

  2. I’m leaning toward Captain Ed’s position, at least for now. It’s one thing to hold your nose on election day to prevent four years of John Kerry’s Presidency, and another to roll over between between election cycles. Failing to push the “nuclear” (sensible) option is only one of the ways our Republican leaders are failing to lead. Border control is another.

    Xrlq (ffb240)

  3. This defection on the filibuster is just further proof that our political system has become worthless.

    The Democrats don’t want anything done because the don’t have the votes to advance their agenda.

    A few Republicans want to deal with actual issues but most just sit on their ass hoping their membership in the worlds most pleasant club, the US Senate, doesn’t expire.

    Probably 90 percent Senators don’t want anything except favors for/from their friends.

    Ken (72e5cf)

  4. Obviously, the ideological opposition to these judges is more important than retaining the filibuster.

    It is more important to oppose these appointments AND lose the filibuster, than to relent and allow and up-or-down vote on ANY of them. If four or five appointments were voted on, chances are with a little savvy politiking the others would “go away.” Instead it is more important to lose the filibuster and let all 10 appointments pass.

    Why is that?

    Jim (f8cdb6)

  5. Me thinks it is time for Senator McCain to leave the Republican Party and then retire – so the residents of Arizona can elect a true conservative Senator.
    He served his country well in Vietnam but has been selling out liberty ever since. Shame.
    And Feingold running for President! Pl—ease!!

    Flap (bef92f)

  6. Patterico–as one who works with the law, can you please explain to me the legal, constitutional rationale that supports doing away with this long-standing check/balance in the Senate. To me, this is nothing but a power-grab, and a flagrantly dangerous one at that–on par with the “Marriage Protection Act” or anything else that would undermine judicial review. Anyway, where’s the beef? What am I missing here?

    Lastly, is no one considering the consequences of having only simple majorities when their party loses power? You think the Democrats would just reinstate the filibuster in that case? I certainly don’t…what goes around comes around. Anyway, I’m interested to hear your thoughts, if you’ve got a minute, P.

    Tom (301b86)

  7. what is wrong with you people? seriously? Is the fruit of power so intoxicating to you that you would allow democracy to fall by the wayside. Or is it that democracy to you is merely a word used to manufacture the consent of the dissenter. The senate has always been the essential branch of the legislature to check the tyranny of the majority…why do you think that regardless of population each state has 2 senators, if you’re so into the historical constructionism of Sacalia/Thomas pick up a history book and check out the history of the framing of the constitution. Your vitriol and ignorant rants border on treason.

    voice of reason (1a72a0)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1784 secs.