More judicial punditry

The Washington Times has Former Senator Bob Dole on the historical context and unprecedented nature of the Democratic judicial filibusters.

By creating a new 60-vote threshold for confirming judicial nominees, today's Senate Democrats have abandoned more than 200 years of Senate tradition.
For the first time, judicial nominees with clear majority support are denied an up-or-down vote on the Senate floor through an unprecedented use of the filibuster. This is not a misrepresentation of history; it's a fact.

One of the surest ways to determine whether the Democrats are at fault in any political confrontation is to consult the likes of Howard Fineman. If the Republicans are at fault, the pundit class will say that the Republicans are to blame. If both sides are equally to blame, the pundit class will say that the Republicans are to blame. And if the Democrats are to blame, the pundit class will say that the parties are both at fault, equally to blame, etc.

So, here's Howard:

I'll leave it to others to weigh the exact measure of blame for this; I would say that both parties are at fault.

Hardline Republicans and Democrats BOTH insist that they want to save the Senate as we know it from procedural abuses. They both can't be right. Indeed, they're probably both wrong.

That says it all...

And David Broder is fear-mongering for the Republicans today in the Washington Post. I'm repeating myself here, but once again we see the canard trotted out that the filibuster will still protect Republicans as long as they don't get rid of it right now.

But I was struck by the comment of Utah's Robert Bennett, class of 1993, a second-generation senator who learned his love of the institution at his father's knee. Bennett puts much of the blame for the current crisis on the Democrats, for blocking people such as Miguel Estrada, who served with distinction in the Clinton administration Justice Department but nonetheless was filibustered so long that he withdrew as a Bush appeals court nominee.

But Bennett said that, whatever the outcome of this vote, he fears that a sword has been unsheathed that will forever change the way the Senate operates. "Once we [Republicans] try to change the rules with 51 votes, the precedent is on the table," he said. "If Hillary Clinton becomes president with a Democratic Senate and wants to appoint Lani Guinier to the Supreme Court, Harry Reid could make that happen with 51 votes."

That is a thought for Republicans to ponder.

OK, let's ponder it. President Hillary Clinton? Scary thought. Lani Guinier nomination to the Supreme Court? Scary thought. 55 Democratic Senators supporting the nomination being blocked by 45 Republicans opposed? How long will that last before the rule gets changed? 5 minutes? 10?

It's nonsense. If we ever seen a Democratic majority thwarted on a Supreme Court nomination by a Republican minority, the Democrats will change the rule. Period. With the full-throated support of the New York Times, the Washington Post, CBS, NBC, ABC and yes, even David Broder.

Tell me I'm wrong, if you want, but don't expect me to believe it...