TheDuke's Domain

I have two more thoughts on the whole judicial nominations battles currently being waged over the Senate. The first comes from a naive editorial from the Cincinnati Post that urges a compromise on the so-called "nuclear option". They first make the lame argument that it's "only" 10 nominees that have been blocked by Senate Democrats. My response is that it may "only" be 10 nominees, but these have been blocked repeatedly and are some of the same judges that conservatives would like to see on the appellate court level. Most of these nominees have also been blocked, even though the left denies this left and right, because of their religious convictions and beliefs. If there are nominees that are egregious in their use of their faith in making decisions, then fine, lets have a vote and lets have the full Senate either approve or reject them. As it stands, the Senate has done nothing. That isn't right and the Democrats continue unwarranted and unprecedented blocking maneuvers.

The editorial naively suggests that the Democrats listen to reason and accept Frist's offers of compromise. This is naive because asHugh Hewitt points out in a Weekly Standard column, the intellectual leaders in this fight on the left are not interested in compromise and since the Democrats do their bidding slavishly, the Democrats are not interested in compromise either.

Speaking of Mr. Hewitt . . . I wonder if he will concede the point made by the folks at National Review Online that Arlen Specter really DIDN'T have the proper temperament to be committee chairman in such a partisan atmosphere? How could conservatives expect a Senator to fight for their beliefs when he already agreed with the "mainstream-ness" of the nominees? How could conservatives expect Specter to fight for pro-life judges when he considered Roe v. Wade to be "inviolate"? I think that we would have had better results with a true believer (John Kyl) instead of a draftee (Specter).