ZeroThat's the number of people who's going to watch the 30-hour Senate debate and change their mind one way or the other. And yet I can't stop ... One point I want to make: one of the Democrats' talking points is that 168 nominees got approved, and only 4 didn't, a rate of 98%. As Saxby Chambliss pointed out, 98% isn't good enough in a lot of situations. My point is, if 4 appointments isn't such a big deal, why not just let them get a vote? The answer, of course, is that those 4 nominees are obviously a big deal, which is why the Democrats are so set on blocking the votes. The Democrats so far have spent a lot of time talking about the other issues they could have spent that 30 hours on; if other issues like prescription drugs and the energy bill are more important to Democrats than judicial appointments, then maybe they should just compromise on this issue in exchange for concessions on other issues. All of this is not to say they should just unilaterally disarm and allow the votes without any Republican concessions, only that they are disingenuous when they say that 4 nominees not getting votes is not a big deal. ALSO: I agree with Randy Barnett's suggestion that the Democrats allow the votes in exchange for the Republicans changing the Senate rules so that future Democratic presidents can also get up-or-down votes for his appointments. |
Comments:
Post a Comment
