Disarmament in the Senate

NYT editorialized If nothing else, the deal to end the Senate's "nuclear option" showdown was heartening in that it did demonstrate that moderates still exist in Washington, and actually have the capacity to work together to get things done. On the other hand, it's not terribly encouraging to see how low the bar is for joining the moderate camp.

Viewing things from the extreme left, as NYT usually does, I wonder if they really understand what moderate means.

The seven Republicans who played the critical role in brokering an agreement include several staunch conservatives whose claim to centrism lies in their desire to avoid devoting the rest of the year to procedural battles between the hamstrung Democrats and the overbearing Republican majority. The pact they forged will preserve the minority's right to filibuster - block a bill or nomination unless a supermajority of 60 senators votes to proceed. To get there, the seven Democrats involved in the negotiations paid a high price - allowing the nominations of three of President Bush's most controversial nominees to the federal Courts of Appeals to go through to an up-or-down vote that they will undoubtedly win....

As I understand it the agreement was supposed to be a compromise. Did you really think the Republicans were going to compromise and not let at least some of their judges get approved?

While the idea of letting the majority rule is at the heart of much in American democracy, it has little to do with the Senate, where some members represent 10 times as many people as others. There is absolutely nothing unfair about allowing a minority that actually represents more American people to veto lifetime appointments of judges who are far outside the mainstream of American thinking.

The reason some senators represent more people than other senators is that the founding fathers set up the Senate to represent states. If you like representatives that are set up according to population, you need to look at the House.

Captain Ed blogged Their main beef, besides the signatories, is that some of Bush's nominees get votes. If that's the problem, why does the Times endorse this compromise at all? After all, did they expect a compromise to mean that the GOP wound up with nothing at all? .... The clear ignorance of the Times' editorial board demonstrates once again the wisdom of their publisher in hiding their future statements from bloggers behind a $50 firewall. They've made themselves irrelevant through intellectual dishonesty and incompetence, and their disappearance from the public discourse should cause nary a ripple once they lock themselves away into their financial cloister.

Ace blogged Typical screeching column about "extremists" on the bench, "overbearing Republicans," and the need for "centrist" (read: dogmatic liberal) nominees for the high court.