Of late, I have been reading some good books, including Linda Greenhouse's new biography of Justice Blackmun. The bio, based on his notes, is not meant to be comprehensive, but still provides some interesting material on the man and the institutions for which he worked.
Some time ago, I wrote him a letter (it noted my disagreement of his support of the constitutionality of the death penalty, suggesting how far back this was), and I still have the nice letter sent back. Form or not, it suggests the generosity and diligence of the man, and he is the type of public servant that can provide a useful model to us all. Imperfect he may be, but aren't we all?
I'd add that good reading material reaffirms my respect for the ability of many to write long form accounts so well. The number of books, many quite bad, out there suggests this is not really a remarkable accomplishment. Nonetheless, and my personal attempts at writing supplies a certain degree of special perspective here, it remains so.
The well written essay and book, especially those that unify Multiple sources into a comprehensive and interesting to read whole, is worthy of our fullest respect. I have learnt by now that facts and opinion, no matter how true, is of little value without a proper degree of skilled exposition. This is the key to politics, but the principle holds true across the board.
For instance, two useful expressions from practicing legal professions expounding on why various judicial nominees might be minimally "qualified" but still not worthy of appointment to the federal bench. The discussions provide a multifaceted argument, one a bit more convincing (if clearly having ideological flavor) than talk of them being "out of the mainstream" (see NYT editorial cartoons today) or the like.
The testimonial (of sorts) concerning the Sixth Circuit of Appeals nominees (one rarely hears about this circuit in the news ... at least I haven't) is part of the comments to a Kevin Drum discussion debating the views of a conservative sort that attempts to show that filibusters are different from other measures used by Republicans in the past.
On some level, there is a difference. For instance, so-called blue slip holds are in theory meant to serve a singular function of allowing home state senators to block those judges that negatively affect their states. Nonetheless, the net effect in practice were "filibuster-lite." Arguments to the contrary, including the implication that until now only those likely to fail on the floor were blocked in such as way, seem to be dubious at best.*
Anyway, a word to that bête noire of mine, David Brooks. His editorial today challenges Senate "moderates"** to have the guts to stick-up to their convictions, and forcibly demand a compromise solution. I can buy that sentiment. Still, what is the "very fair" compromise offered? Allowing the votes of a few of the blocked nominees, a promise not to use the filibuster except under rare circumstances, and a check on the Senate Republicans respecting its use the nuclear option. [A comment suggests we should not trust the SR to hold their side of the bargain ... I put that valid warning aside here.]
It is far from shocking that this was not taken too seriously by Senate Democrats. The attempt to block something like ten nominees (including, to name one not covered by my link, someone who failed to reaffirm his law license ... oopsie) is rather "rare" in my book.
The implication, as addressed in my last post on this issue, is that it can be used for troublesome (whatever that means) Supreme Court nominees. Maybe. Second, the three listed that the Democrats would allow votes for are (by Brooks account): Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, and Janice Rogers Brown! Yes, perhaps the three most explosive nominees of them all (now that Pickering announced his retirement). This is "compromise?"
If you want a reason, Brooks, "why moderates never accomplish anything in Washington," maybe this might raise a red flag. How exactly Democrats are supposed to be satisfied that two or three somewhat obscure (one of which apparently has something iffy in his FBI file ... a fact [Newsweek connection alert!] made clear publicly over a year ago, but Sen. Reid was targeted when he recently referenced it) nominees would be blocked out of over two hundred (or fifty-five or so appellate nominees) is somewhat unclear to me. Compromise is supposed to hurt both sides a bit more than that.
---
* Another technique, also suddenly deemed unwise now that Clinton is no longer in office, is the "Rule IV" option. This requires at least one minority vote to agree before submission of matter to the committee as a whole in certain cases ... a sound practice on the face of it. See here for some history.
** The current head of the Senate Judiciary Committee is said to be among this class, though his actions since late last year suggest its a somewhat dubious label. I admit to being a bit creeped out by his new bald look (has he had health problems?), especially given the size of his ears.