Bob Dole had an oh-so invigorating opinion piece in the NY Times today. Viagra puns aside, it was probably the most convincing argument I’ve heard any Republican put forth on why the Democrats shouldn’t (threaten to) filibuster. His basic premise is that by using the threat of filibuster on Bush’s judicial nominees, the Democrats are essentially shutting down the nominations, and thus progress on Bush’s agenda. The GOP response to this, Dole thinks, is to rightly push for a rule change so the Senate can get back to business. Dole wants the Democrats to put down their gun, and if they don’t, he says the rule change is legitimate.
Dole thinks the Senate’s historic tendency of bipartisanship should trump the content or meaning of specific nominations and the accompanying minority response.
“But let’s be honest: By creating a new threshold for the confirmation of judicial nominees, the Democratic minority has abandoned the tradition of mutual self-restraint that has long allowed the Senate to function as an institution.”
Like I said, I think Dole has put forth a fairly legitimate argument on why Dems shouldn’t filibuster Bush’s nominees.
Of course, then it occurred to me that Dole’s argument is in fact sophistical. It doesn’t look at the whole picture and it doesn’t lay any responsibility on Bush for his choice of nominees. If we back up the timeline that Dole considers in his piece, his argument becomes irrelevant. Sure, if the Democrats were damaging Senate tradition for partisan gain, a rule change would be a welcome response. But they’re not. The Democrats are responding to the nomination of radical, regressive activist judges who are out to strike down abortion law and enact other planks of the religious right’s agenda. Democrats are stopping the flood of nihilistic regressivism. They have an obligation to keep the judiciary representative of all of our nation’s people and faiths, not just the Christian right.
It is President Bush who is to blame here. The Senate has repeatedly and legally rejected a handful of his judicial nominations on good grounds. If he fails to submit new nominees that represent the moderate majority of America, then the fallout for the Democrats desire to keep the courts legitimate must land on the White House lawn. I’m sure there are countless moderate justices who won’t be partisan activists, either for a regressive or a progressive agenda. Let’s see them get confirmed in a quick up or down vote. But Dole, Bush, Frist and all other regressive Republicans can’t expect their activist nominees to go unscrutinized.
Philo
