Prometheus 6

You know what, Mr. Brownstein?

Arguments over judicial nominations trace back to John Adams and Thomas Jefferson and can never be entirely eliminated. But over the last decade, the rejection of the president's choices has become far too common. Unless both sides take a risk to break the cycle of conflict, Washington will be sentenced to unrelenting and unproductive warfare over the courts.

Democrats took that risk last term. And what it got them?

Date rape.

Quote of note:

Bush nominated 52 appellate court judges in his first term; Congress approved 35 of them. That's prompted the GOP charge that Democrats are abusing the right to advise and consent on presidential appointees.

But Republicans blocked almost exactly as many of President Clinton's nominees. Clinton, during his second term, nominated 51 appellate court judges —  and the Republican Senate confirmed 35.

To End Battle Over Judicial Picks, Each Side Must Lay Down Arms
Ronald Brownstein
February 21, 2005

The struggle over President Bush's judicial nominations is degenerating into the equivalent of a Civil War reenactment. Everyone knows his part. Everyone has rehearsed the hostilities. And everyone knows how the battle turns out.

Well, maybe not everyone.

Some Senate Republicans are optimistic that this time they can shatter the Democratic resistance to the most controversial nominees. That's always possible. But it's still not likely unless Republicans execute their threats to change Senate rules to prevent Democrats from filibustering nominees. And that could generate enough hostility in Congress to make the Civil War analogy frighteningly apt.

Rather than escalating the conflict so dangerously, each side would better serve the country by reaching an agreement that breaks the impasse over judges. It's a depressing measure of contemporary Washington that hardly anyone talks about such a compromise.