WSJ: Defending the Indefensible

I rarely read a WSJ editorial with no redeeming social value. I almost invariably find something that makes me think about my own conclusions, and I can generally respect their position even if I disagree deeply with their argument or conclusion. As a result, when I saw the headline and subhead for this morning's editorial, How we got here: Why Republicans Can't Let The Judicial Filibuster Succeed, I thought: "Aha! Finally! An intelligent explanation of why the Republicans are willing to go to such lengths to get 3 or4 lower court nominees confirmed."

Man, was I disappointed.

As John McCain reportedly said on the weekend news circuit, the very point of the Senate, with two members from each State regardless of size, it to protect minoritiy interests from the tyranny of the majority. Judicial appointments are political. And, they are important. I do not support the trashing that Robert Bork or Clarence Thomas got at the hands of the Democrats. But neither do I believe, as the editorial argues, that a Presiedent has an absolute right to appoint whomever he wants to the federal bench simply becuase 50 Senators plus the Vice President are members of his own Party.

The editorial concludes: "This is at its core a political fight, and elections ought to mean something." I agree on both counts. But what gets missed in this is that the Republicans did not win THAT big. Having 55 Senators just isn't a big enough majority to have everything they want. They have to compromise. But that is simply not in their lexicon these days and they would prefer to do permanent damage to the Senate and the Country than to give even one inch on the childish mantra: I won! Therefore I get everything I want!

I say again, any judicial nominee who has the benefit of a Presidential nomination and all of the benefits that Presedential backing brings to bear on his/her confirmation, but who still cannot get at least the acquience of 60 Senators, has no buisness getting a lifetime appointment to anything, much less to the federal bench.