Today’s Washington Post quotes Joseph Lieberman‘s anguish over the “nuclear option” debate:
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), one of the Democrats seeking a compromise, offered an insight during a speech on the floor into why the talks have been so difficult. Lieberman said invoking the nuclear option would be a mistake and said he hoped a compromise could be found.
But [Why this “But”? It seems out of place — jsr] he argued passionately to preserve the right to filibuster a judicial nominee he believes is not qualified and said it is essential that judicial nominees should be able to muster votes from more than one party. “That’s what’s on the line here,” he said. “The institutional requirements of 60 votes is one of the last best hopes of bipartisanship and moderation.”
I respect one or two of the Sen. Liebermans who have appeared on the national stage over the past years, but this comment strikes me as odd for a couple of reasons. First, the objection to the current nominees is not about their competence, at least as traditionally defined (high ABA ratings, respect of their peers, etc.). It is based on opposition to how it is predicted they will vote on cases involving social issues. (One of them, William Pryor, serving now on a recess appointment to the eleventh circuit, has already defied these predictions in an important case.) The Dems, in short, are voting against them as judges for the same reasons they would vote against them for political office. I suppose this is because the Dems now openly view the courts as just another political branch.
More interesting, though no more persuasive, is Sen. Lieberman’s no doubt heartfelt defense of the judicial filibuster as necessary for “bipartisanship.” In reply there is, first, the obvious question: What bipartisanship? We have the filibuster now, and we certainly have had no bipartisanship on the judges. On closer inspection, the “bipartisanship” that Lieberman celebrates in practice means doing nothing the Democratic minority opposes.
That is because of what I believe is an underappreciated fact: the Democrats these days are much much more monolithic and less, well, diverse than the Republicans. That is, there are not only more but many more Republican senators who vote with some frequency with the Democrats than there are Democratic senators who vote with Republicans. The result is that if the minority Democrats solidly oppose a nominee, “bipartisanship” turns out to mean that the majority Republicans must nominate candidates whom at least five or six Democrats will support. But if/when the tables are turned, and the Democrats are once again in the majority, they will be able to count on the votes of enough “moderate” Republicans (if, indeed, their majority is small enough to need them) that they will not have to compromise their selections to the extent that they now demand Republicans compromise theirs. In other words, if they win elections, they win; and if the Republicans win, why they still win anyway.
Sen. Lieberman’s eloquent plea for “bipartisanship,” in short, would be more persuasive if more Democrats practiced what he preaches.
Unfortunately, this is why the nuclear option is the correct way for Senate Republicans to respond. Conservative Democrats used to balance the RINOs, but in the 21st Century we seem to have lost them altogether, probably due to gerrymandering. So be it. The pious mewlings of Democrats about bipartisanship should be seen for what they are. And you have done so.
” We have the filibuster now, and we certainly have had no bipartisanship on the judges”
No bipartisanship? haven’t loads of judges gotten through?
Ahh, once you’ve got the second one, why would you give any of them respect? Especially since the differences appeared, not with rethinking positions over a period of time, but in the twinkling of an eye when he got the VP nomination? Bah, Humbug, I say.
actus:
No bipartisanship? haven’t loads of judges gotten through?
It is my impression — someone will correct me if I’m wrong — that more than thirty percent of Bush’s nominees to the circuit courts have been blocked, more than any previous president’s.
Are we only talking about circuit judges?
In effect, yes. They are the only ones being filibustered, in part because they are more influential than district judges and in larger part because the Dems fear that some of them would make attractive Supreme Court nominees.