Lots of email about my filibuster deal posts (lots of trackbacks too). Here's one of the nice ones:
As usual, you have it exactly right re the filibuster! The point is to confirm the conservative judicial nominees, which will apparently happen, one by one. Whether the filibuster continues to be abused can be addressed in the future, when there is absolutely no other choice. Everyone should keep their attention focused on the nominees, who, once confirmed are potential SCOTUS candidates with previous, recent Senate confirmations under their belts.
And this one too:
I think you're a lot closer to reality on this topic than many others. Long term, there will come a day when a liberal Democrat occupies the White House and has a Senate majority. The threat of a filibuster then will help dissuade the appointment of another Brennan. Short term, the deal depends primarily on whether the Democrats are going to act in good faith and reserve the filibuster to a truly extraordinary circumstance, as they have promised. If they don't, that's a breach of the agreement and the nuclear (or constitutional) option remains available.
And Paul emailed me a link to his blog, in which he uses a chess analogy to support the deal.
But then there's this:
I had not realized you had such faith in the honesty and integrity of liberals. The agreement depends on the honesty and integrity of the seven democrats, the leader of whom is Robert Byrd.
And this:
Your argument depends on the notion that the Dems would likely not go nuclear when they find it to their advantage, for, if they would, why not get the thing done now so the good guys can profit from it for a while? I doubt this assumption is true, in the light of their party discipline and "permanent campaign" attitude.
Mike at the Right Coast is on the same page as my critics.
In the first place, I think all these folks are missing the point (or, at least, my point). For me, this isn't about judicial nominees. It's about principle. The filibuster has been around for a long time and changes to it have almost always been proposed by liberals. The left knows that the filibuster is a deeply conservative weapon whose main function is to advance the function the founders intended for the Senate:
In selecting an appropriate visual symbol of the Senate in its founding period, one might consider an anchor, a fence, or a saucer. Writing to Thomas Jefferson, who had been out of the country during the Constitutional Convention, James Madison explained that the Constitution's framers considered the Senate to be the great "anchor" of the government. To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea. (Link)
In the second, I don't buy the claim that the Democrats will simply do away with the filibuster whenever it suits them. (1) A chief problem with American politics these days is the assumption on both sides of the aisle that the other side is unprincipled. There are people of good will and principle on both sides and I am willing to take the Democrats who signed the deal at their word. Of course, as Ronald Reagan said, "trust but verify." (2) Even if the other side is as unprincipled as my critics argue, does that mean we should give up our principles? Two wrongs, after all, do not make a right. (3) As a practical matter, changing the filibuster is tough. It's only happened a relatively few number of times. The Democrats never tried it back when the GOP filibustered Clinton legislative proposals. Indeed, the Democrats never even tried to change the Judiciary Committee rules that the GOP used to bottle up Clinton nominees in committee. So why should the GOP pave the way for them?
Speaking of those committee rules, another reader suggests:
The conservatives who want to nuke judicial filibusters are seeking a return to the status- quo pre-2000 -- not a radical change. Using filibusters to block judicial nominees was the radical change.
Fine. If you want to go back to pre-2000, you've got to restore blue slips, honor the Judiciary Committee practice of only holding hearings on one controversial nominee at a time, and the old interpretation of Judiciary Committee rule IV under which at least one minority vote is required to end debate within the committee. All of which were rules the GOP used to bottle up Clinton nominees in committee. The conservatives who are so exercised about this deal just sort of glide right past this point.
Which leads me to my favorite email:
Since you appear to be taking some flak for thinking for yourself and not echoing some presumed party line on the filibuster compromise, I thought I'd take some time to thank you for your good sense in general and on this issue in particular. I found it especially refreshing to see a conservative blogger write the following:
BTW, any honest conservative must admit that the only reason we're having this debate over filibusters is because of Orin Hatch's changes to the Judiciary Committee rules and procedures on matters like blue slips, hearings, and so on, which deprived the Democrats of the tactics that the GOP used to bottle up a lot of Clinton nominees in committee.
I've been reading your blog since March. You and I certainly disagree on many things, but your intellectual honesty and reasonable tone makes your blog a must-read in my opinion.
My blushes! I try to meet that standard and appreciate both the occasional pat on the back confirming that I did so and the more frequent correction when I stray.
