Broder watch (filibuster edition):

No doubt, there will be plenty of critical commentary about Sunday's Op-Ed by David Broder on the filibuster. Essentially, he's saying that the Democrats should cave. Entirely. Broder wrote: (emp add)

The Democratic Senate leadership should agree voluntarily to set aside the continued threat of filibustering ...

In return, they should get a renewed promise from the president that he will not bypass the Senate by offering any more recess appointments to the bench and a pledge from Republican Senate leaders to consider each such nominee individually ...

Democrats should do something - agree to stop filibustering - and the Republicans should promise and pledge to be nicer. Who is going to believe the Republicans (especially the president) will honor their word? And the promise and pledge is nothing more than to adapt procedures that merely delay the eventual approval of a Bush nominee.

Hey, David! You forgot to mention that one of the nominees, Janice Brown, is from California and neither of the Democratic senators approve of her. That, in earlier days of the Blue-slip rule, would have been enough to halt the nomination. Republicans have flexed the Blue-slip rule to suit themselves, depending on who held the White House. Of this, Broder is silent.

After asserting that "the opposition still has a constitutional role to play, at the end of the day that function has to be more than talking important matters to death" - meaning that filibusters are off-limits for Democrats, Broder writes:

[Democrats should] preserve the possibility of a filibuster should Bush later submit someone they find seriously objectionable for a vacancy on the Supreme Court.

That's rich. If anything, there will be a greater call by Republicans for a filibuster-free procedure for the important SC nominee.

More Broder:

Instead of sending a message that they do not trust their Republican colleagues' judgment -- and therefore feel justified in preventing a vote -- the Democrats would be saying to their colleagues and the country: We trust you to take your "advise and consent" duties seriously.

How can Broder say that Democrats should trust Republicans to take the advice-and-consent role seriously when the Republicans want to approve every single Bush nominee to the courts? The Senate Republicans are, for the moment, a rubber-stamp for the White House.

ON A RELATED FRONT: David, how are those Congressional inquiries into administration misbehavior going? You know, the sort of thing that Democrats should trust the Republicans to do. That's right. There are none.

END NOTE: Broder's essay is titled A Judicious Compromise. Broder's idea of a compromise is for Democrats to give up whatever power they have under current Senate rules and trust in promises and pledges from the likes of Bush, Cheney, and Frist. That's a mug's game.

posted by Quiddity at 4/24/2005 12:00:00 AM