Dubya's Judicial "In Your Face" to the Dems
This is why Republicans love George W. Bush. The Dems stuff his judicial nominees in '01-'02? He takes control of the Senate away from them. They filibuster his judicial nominees in '03-'04? He increases their disadvantage by another four seats.
Of course, it would have been nice if he'd fought for his nominees during these bienniums instead of using his choices as election props, but at least he's sending them back up again for a third time. The message couldn't be any clearer: these are my choices and I'm going to keep sending them up until they're given an up or down vote. Period.
Democrats professed surprise and disappointment at the President's lack of "bipartisanship," but they're not really all that relevant anymore, and even if they were, they're so hopelessly and predictably full of crap that you can practically verbatim map out what they're going to say. Which is another way of saying that I don't really give a frog's fat leg what they have to say about it.
What does interest me is the statement of incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter:
"It has been my hope that we might be able to approach this whole issue with some cooler perspective," he said in an interview. "I would have preferred to have some time in the 109th Congress to improve the climate to avoid judicial gridlock and future filibusters."
Mr. Specter, who said he had been talking to both Republicans and Democrats in order to improve the chances for compromise, said it might now be "difficult to change the atmosphere with the submission of these names."
Well, now, I'm sure the Donks would be just delighted with "compromise" if it meant the President caving and replacing his constitutionalist selections with activist and/or stealth libs (a la David Souter), as Senator Specter quite openly suggests. That's the kind of "bipartisanship" that once dominated the Beltway for decades during the long, dark years of Democrat rule. Once again, the President is sending an unmistakable message: That era is over, and "compromise" is henceforth a two-way street.
Specter was hasty in underscoring that he (still) gets that message:
But he said the President was, in any case, entitled to do as he had done and that as chairman he would "play the cards that are dealt," in trying to get Mr. Bush's nominees confirmed.
Can any level-headed observer really claim to be confident of that assertion given (1) who uttered it and (2) the comments on whose heels it so closely follows?
Republicans from the White House on down are going to rue the day they let Arlen Specter have that gavel, mark my words.
Of course, it would have been nice if he'd fought for his nominees during these bienniums instead of using his choices as election props, but at least he's sending them back up again for a third time. The message couldn't be any clearer: these are my choices and I'm going to keep sending them up until they're given an up or down vote. Period.
Democrats professed surprise and disappointment at the President's lack of "bipartisanship," but they're not really all that relevant anymore, and even if they were, they're so hopelessly and predictably full of crap that you can practically verbatim map out what they're going to say. Which is another way of saying that I don't really give a frog's fat leg what they have to say about it.
What does interest me is the statement of incoming Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter:
"It has been my hope that we might be able to approach this whole issue with some cooler perspective," he said in an interview. "I would have preferred to have some time in the 109th Congress to improve the climate to avoid judicial gridlock and future filibusters."
Mr. Specter, who said he had been talking to both Republicans and Democrats in order to improve the chances for compromise, said it might now be "difficult to change the atmosphere with the submission of these names."
Well, now, I'm sure the Donks would be just delighted with "compromise" if it meant the President caving and replacing his constitutionalist selections with activist and/or stealth libs (a la David Souter), as Senator Specter quite openly suggests. That's the kind of "bipartisanship" that once dominated the Beltway for decades during the long, dark years of Democrat rule. Once again, the President is sending an unmistakable message: That era is over, and "compromise" is henceforth a two-way street.
Specter was hasty in underscoring that he (still) gets that message:
But he said the President was, in any case, entitled to do as he had done and that as chairman he would "play the cards that are dealt," in trying to get Mr. Bush's nominees confirmed.
Can any level-headed observer really claim to be confident of that assertion given (1) who uttered it and (2) the comments on whose heels it so closely follows?
Republicans from the White House on down are going to rue the day they let Arlen Specter have that gavel, mark my words.
posted by JASmius at 5:26 PM
<<< Home