FILIBUSTERS: BROOKS GETS IT WRONG [Andy McCarthy]
nationalreview.com
David Brooks's column this morning, contending the Frist should have taken a compromise deal reputedly offered by Reid, is really one of his weaker efforts. See here.
First of all, according to Brooks, Reid has committed to Frist that if the GOP will withdraw some number of POTUS's nominees, Dems will not only permit an up-or-down vote on others but Reid will ensure that the next Supreme Court nominee will not be filibustered. Leaving aside the important question of whether Brooks's sources are reliable, Brooks gives no indication why Reid should be believed on such a promise. As Rich Lowry has pointed out, the Dems recently broke deals on the procedures to be followed in Bolton's nomination process. (See.) Why should Frist trust Reid without having some kind of hammer over him?
Second, the Dems haven't made the case that a single one of POTUS's nominees is unqualified or otherwise unacceptable. Not even close. The Dems aren't being stifled here -- they've had hours upon hours of debate and they are fully entitled to vote no. What they are demanding is a minority right to win, and under circumstances when they've done nothing to persuade other than flex the extortionate muscles of a capacity to gum up the works. On what principle, then, shall we say that these of POTUS's nominees should get through but these others should be withdrawn? Which ones and why? We don't know b/c the Dems have not mounted an issue-based debate. They've mounted an extortion-based debate. Why should they be allowed to get away with that?
Third, who needs a deal for the next Supreme Court nominee? If Justice Rehnquist steps down, a conservative nominee is not going to change the balance of the court. The Dems obviously know that, and in a high-stakes nomination that gets tons of press attention, they may well decide not to filibuster because it's not in their interest to do so. Why should Frist purchase something he might get for free?
Finally, Brooks inanely asserts that "Frist should have grabbed this offer because it's time for senators to re-establish the principle that they, not the outside interest groups, run the Senate." We are at this impasse precisely because the Dems' outside interest groups have induced their partisans in the senate to cast tradition aside and deny a floor-vote to nominees. It is simply absurd for Brooks to frame the argument as if it is opposition to the filibusters, rather than the filibusters themselves, is the telling evidence of outside interest groups running the senate. |
