Saturday, April 23, 2005
More On The Judiciary and The Filibuster
Three Supreme Court Justices held a public discussion the other day. It makes for interesting reading. After reading it, I wonder how they get along off hours.
Dick Cheney has once again committed himself to busting the filibuster, much to the astonishment and dismay of the NYTimes.
Charles Krauthammer has a great piece that, while it cautions us about the vitriol, points out that we have plenty to be cncerned about with regards to the judiciary. the battle over nominations is very consequential, despite John Kerry's near-gibberish contention to the contrary. Krauthammer may have uncovered the explanation for Kerry's inarticulateness:
Speaking of the filibuster, Sean Rushton at NRO supplies a number of very important facts about the filibuster. This is an extremel;y important read if you are in the "don't want to change 200 years of tradition" camp, or just want to argue with someone who is. It's been a pretty fexible tradition.
And on a final note concerning a recalcitrant Senate minority, consider this NRO piece on the Bolton nomination and yesterday's revelation on Colin Powell's feeling ont he matter. I personally think at thi spoint that Powell is attmpting to position himself as "the Great Moderate" in preparation for a presidential bid, either Democratic or 3rd party. I would not be surprised if he sought some sort of electoral revenge against the RRepublican party that had now shunned him ala Ross Perot.
Dick Cheney has once again committed himself to busting the filibuster, much to the astonishment and dismay of the NYTimes.
Charles Krauthammer has a great piece that, while it cautions us about the vitriol, points out that we have plenty to be cncerned about with regards to the judiciary. the battle over nominations is very consequential, despite John Kerry's near-gibberish contention to the contrary. Krauthammer may have uncovered the explanation for Kerry's inarticulateness:
Democracies work as stable social entities because when people are allowed to settle issues themselves by debate and ballot, they are infinitely more likely to accept the results when they lose. To deny them that participation is to risk instability and threaten social peace.I think the Dems have simply lost their political skill. They have been able to rely on the courts to mandate so much of their agenda, that they have not needed to actually exercise real arguement in the public sphere. Which explains why they are so incredibly paniced about losing the filibuster.
It was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who said that Roe v. Wade "halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue."
Speaking of the filibuster, Sean Rushton at NRO supplies a number of very important facts about the filibuster. This is an extremel;y important read if you are in the "don't want to change 200 years of tradition" camp, or just want to argue with someone who is. It's been a pretty fexible tradition.
And on a final note concerning a recalcitrant Senate minority, consider this NRO piece on the Bolton nomination and yesterday's revelation on Colin Powell's feeling ont he matter. I personally think at thi spoint that Powell is attmpting to position himself as "the Great Moderate" in preparation for a presidential bid, either Democratic or 3rd party. I would not be surprised if he sought some sort of electoral revenge against the RRepublican party that had now shunned him ala Ross Perot.
