CrimLaw

Debating Judicial Nominations:

NY Times

v.

Washington Times

How Appealing points out a NY Times op-ed which approves the judicial filibuster:

"The reason his nominees have met with resistance is not Democratic intransigence or a flawed rule. It is that many are far-right ideologues whose views offend most Americans. There is only one way to end the deadlock: compromise.
. . .
The only "crisis" at hand is that the White House is having trouble getting its most politically extreme nominees confirmed.
. . .
Senate Democrats have asked to work with the White House to identify qualified candidates who are acceptable to all sides. But so far, the White House has insisted on its right to name judges who are far outside the mainstream. If President Bush wants to end the impasse, he should take the Democrats up on their offer."

Of course the Washington Times has its own solution:

"Judicial appointments are increasingly in thrall to the very powerful interests that care the most about judges: those contributing disproportionate money and grass-roots effort to individual senators and political parties because they seek certain governmental support for their favorite issues. This is the special-interest model for judicial appointments today.
. . .
Mr. Estrada and Judge Owen graduated from elite law schools, demonstrated rigorous scholarship in their legal writing, and consequently received the American Bar Association's "well-qualified" designation, its highest judicial rating.
. . .
    To solve a national problem that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez now refers to as a judicial "vacancy crisis," the president should invoke a constitutional power that Senate minorities cannot dominate: his power under Article II, Section 2 to fill as necessary all judicial vacancies during a Senate recess. President Bush must use this power decisively to appoint Miguel Estrada, Judge Priscilla Owen, and all other nominees blocked by the Senate minority merely because it disagrees with the president's political philosophy.
. . .
[After that] President Bush would agree to not use this power again if Mr. Daschle and his brethren agree likewise to not obstruct the entire Senate from voting on all judicial nominees within three months of their approval by the Judiciary Committee.

I come down on the side of the Washington Times in this matter. Still, the Democrats are acting in a way that is distasteful but completely legitimate. While I do not believe that they are representing the will of the majority of the people they are representing their core constituency. However, if they are going to play political hardball they have to expect that others will play as well.

I would even one-up what the Washington Times offers. Make a recess appointment of Bork in the position which is marked for Estrada, require the vote on Owen before the vote on Estrada, then leave the Democrats with the choice of whether to leave Bork in place or vote. Bork is extremely qualified so there really can be no complaint that he can't do the job and, boy, wouldn't this be fun to watch.

.