Filibuster: Let's Get Ready To Ruuummmmmbbbblllleee

This story claims that the filibuster showdown is going to occur next week (which they have been saying for a few weeks now).

Senate Republicans on Tuesday picked Texas judge Priscilla Owen to be the flashpoint of a historic battle between President Bush and Senate Democrats over shaping the federal judiciary, with a final showdown looming early next week.

Now here is a little note about all of the nominees. All of them have been given one of the two highest competency ratings from the American Bar Association. In other words they are all highly qualified.

The story blahs on and on about the moderates trying to build a compromise (which I hope fails) and the leaders of both parties are gearing up for their showdown. Neither side is certain they have enough votes.

One of the leading "candidates" for a compromise is just ripe for abuse.

Republicans would have to pledge no change through 2006 in the Senate's rules that allow filibusters against judicial nominees. For their part, Democrats would commit not to block votes on Bush's Supreme Court or appeals court nominees during the same period, except in extreme circumstances.

Each member would be free to determine what constituted an extreme circumstance, but Republicans would bind themselves to not changing the filibuster rule for the next two years.

Hmm, let's see. The Republicans will be held to a commitment that is easily defined...no changes for 2 years. The Democrats will be held to a subjective standard...not block votes except in extreme circumstances.

Hello. They claim that all of these nominees being blocked are extreme cases.

Look at the deal like this: one side has an objective standard while the other side has a subjective standard measured by themselves. Raw deal. Don't do it.

Forgive me if I seem a bit distrusting of Senate Democrats, but these are the same clowns that have for years claiming that all nominees without fail should have an up or down vote. These are the same clowns who thought that the appointments of radical liberal Supreme Court Justices Breyer and Ginsburg are the right of the sitting President (Clinton at the time) and as long as they are qualified the appointments should pass the Senate. When the President is on the other side of the ideological aisle they hypocritically change their tune. Now they say that it is the responsibility to block any nominee of the sitting President's unless they are moderate.

Can't have it both ways. And for the attempt I say that Senate Democrats cannot be trusted in any bargain.

Ditch the over-abused filibuster (this is the same tool that was used to kill Civil Rights for so long) and let the Senators be forced to answer to their votes for a change.