Concerned Women For American Are Concerned About Me: Though I had to pay the $1.95 archive retrieval fee to read it, since I caught it too late, I was honored to see that my little letter to the Washington Times, which was a condensed version of my extended rebuttal of a Nat Hentoff criticism of the Democratic filibuster of Bush judicial nominations, was the target of THOMAS L. JIPPING, Director Judicial Appointments Project Concerned Women for America.
The letter ignored my rebuttal of Hentoff's fast and loose comments about opposition to nominee Priscilla Owen, criticized me for not being "precise" because my mention to an old "filibuster" (to use a word used in a Republican Policy Committee of the US Senate press release) of Justice Breyer's appellate nominee did not mention that it failed (as this one might very well), and argued that a "permanent filibuster" would be a misuse of the constitutional authority I noted gave the Senate a right to set rules of proceedings because it would be an illegitimate supermajority requirement. As compared to the various other times when one or more senators blocked appointments for any number of reasons, I guess. Oh well ... I appreciate the concern.
My extended rebuttal got various replies over at the Slate fray, including yet another attempt to make this all about abortion. Let's put aside that the most important "right to privacy" case this term involves homosexuals. In point of fact, broad concerns involving balance of power and the fate of the lower federal courts (article not free on web, so provided a repost that also has some strong commentary attached) -- where most of the action takes place, now more than ever -- is what truly is at stake here. I know that since the President got his job in part because of the courts, he might feel a desire to have carte blanche in filling key seats in them. Doesn't mean the Democrats should roll over and let him, does it now? Finally, enough with this "crisis" talk ... two filibusters a crisis does not make.