BCT Editorial – 4/26/05

This page was last updated on April 28, 2005.

Hypocrites; Editorial; Beaver County Times; April 26, 2005.

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Senate Republican leaders are threatening to end the filibuster, a longtime Senate tradition that requires 60 votes to cut off debate on any topic, because Senate Democrats have used the tactic or the threat of it to bottle up 10 of President Bush’s nominees to the federal bench.”

[RWC] Incorrect on two points.

First, Republicans are proposing to eliminate the filibuster only for judicial nominees. The filibuster would remain in place for all other purposes for which it can be currently used.

Second, there is no “debate” going on regarding the blocked nominees.

“Never mind that the Senate has approved 204 of his choices. They obviously believe the president has the right to appoint whoever [sic] he wants.”

[RWC] As in a previous editorial, the author omitted a couple of important facts.

First, the editorial fails to note that not all judgeships are created equal. For example, appellate court judges have more “power” than trial judges. That’s because appellate courts can overturn trial court rulings. The further up the appellate court chain you are, the greater your power. The appellate courts are where we tend to see “judicial activism” or “legislation from the bench.”

Second, the editorial fails to note all 10 “filibustered” nominees were for appellate courts. That’s 20% of the 50 judges President Bush nominated for appellate courts.

Regarding the second sentence, here’s a point that is missed too often. Judicial nominees would still need a majority vote to be confirmed and it’s been reported that most – perhaps all – of the nominees would win bipartisan – though not unanimous – support.

“It’s too bad they didn’t feel that way when Bill Clinton was president. The Philadelphia Inquirer reports that ‘Republicans used a variety of gimmicks to block more than 60 of President Clinton’s judicial nominees, many without a hearing or a vote.’

“What hypocrites they are.”

[RWC] Was the Inquirer quote from a news article or an opinion piece? I ask because Times editorials routinely quote opinion pieces as if they were fact.

For the sake of argument, let’s accept that Republicans are hypocrites on this topic.

What about Democrats? Lest we forget, Democrats tried to eliminate the filibuster repeatedly during the 1970s – 1990s.