My point is that it is at most a modest factor, but I am not saying that it isn't a factor or that it is a very tiny one.
Yep, it's clear we disagree on the degree of importance not on the factor itself.
I don't really remember Scalia's hearings well, but he did get a 98 to 0 vote despite being one of most conservative justices (Thomas is even more of an originalist and so arguably even more conservative), and the fact that Reagan didn't do a lot of consultation with the Dems before the nomination.
Same here. I don't remember the hearings. My guess is that Scalia passed so easily because of the overwhelming character of the Reagan win in 84 (I think Scalia was confirmed in 86) and, perhaps, because one of Scalia's views was not something the Dems worried too much about. But I really don't know.
It's an interesting question because I recall Bork was in 87 and we all know what happened there. And one year could not, by itself, have marked a change in the relations between the parties.
Someone else might recall.
It's not at all clear to me we have a trend. We certainly have enough instances now. But, as you might guess, I see the key variable as Bush's decision to govern from his far right rather than as the centrist he campaigned as in 2000. Should the next president campaign from and govern from a more nearly centrist position, the trend will most likely be broken.
That would not be my personal preference. I think it's time for the Dems to make the case for their long term political vision.
But, if one's central concern were comity, a centrist candidate could easily make that happen in 08. Also, because the country is tired of this level of anger in its politics. |
