by Matt Barr

An up or down vote

I am unpersuaded by George Will's column Sunday, insofar as it argues that Republicans shouldn't revoke the filibuster option with regard to judicial appointments because they might want to use it themselves someday:

The future will bring Democratic presidents and Senate majorities. How would you react were such a majority about to change Senate rules to prevent you from filibustering to block a nominee likely to construe the equal protection clause as creating a constitutional right to same-sex marriage?

And pruning the filibuster in the name of majority rule would sharpen the shears that one day will be used to prune it further. If filibusters of judicial nominations are impermissible, why not those of all nominations -- and of treaties, too? Have conservatives forgotten how intensely they once opposed some treaties pertaining to arms control and to the Panama Canal?

But the piece did make me think more about whether my position, which is that appointments should get a full floor vote, is based on a desired outcome, that is, populating the federal judiciary with more restrained judges. I don't think it is.

It's safe to say that disdain for the opposition party's President has grown over the last 14 years. Is it out of the realm of possibility that a President could be stopped from filling his cabinet upon taking office? The political solution to that could be two, four or six years away. Will approaches that point, too, by way of treaty ratification.

Now, normally, anything that gums up the federal government has that on its side, and certainly a Senate in the control of the opposition party can do all the mischief it wants. But better I think to favor the plain majority, which is easier to take corrective action against politically than a 6/10 supermajority.

Browse books from Amazon.com: