I referenced the confirmation of Brett Kavenaugh, one of the lesser targets of the much maligned filibuster affecting about ten of the over two hundred judicial confirmation battles in the Bush years. Why was the battle joined? Some argued it was purely ideological and/or sour grapes respecting losing the election. Putting aside the fact that ideology and politics play a legitimate role (as is often the case these days, this truism has to be repeated of late) given that the nomination process is political, this is not true.
Suffice to say, Dems do not like many of the picks ... why did they target the few they did? Ideology played a part -- thus, we have the "outside the mainstream" meme. Still, ultimately, it was a question of process and balance. Something is wrong when top conservative Republicans (see this whole congressional office search controversy) feel the President is not properly respecting legislative privileges. Add to the Republicans aiding him -- changing the rules for confirmations etc., and you have a big problem.
This is important because security of our liberties comes in many forms:
Separation of powers was designed to implement a fundamental insight: concentration of power in the hands of a single branch is a threat to liberty. The Federalist states the axiom in these explicit terms: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."
I linked to a piece by Sen. Kerry* last time respecting the confirmation for a particular reason: he bluntly said that the bottom line is that the only way to change this state of affairs is to change who makes the decisions. We need new "deciders." This is true aside from the particular concerns with this specific nomination. The experience issue is open to debate. [Some are very happy about the confirmation -- some of the comments laid it on a tad too thick.] I am more concerned with his political connections, though admit that the issue seemed relevant.
[Without proper safeguards, questions of experience, having proper information to judge the nominees, and so forth unfortunately come up. The decision to no longer respect -- unless it helps -- ABA rankings adds to the whole affair. But, I would add that sometimes ideology is the compelling problem, but it is deemed in bad taste to talk about it. So, sometimes other reasons (makeweights to some extent) are raised instead. As usual, with Bush, you have various approaches to take.]
Anyway, as noted elsewhere, if BK is a bone for the base, nothing new there. Again, we need new people. It simply cannot be logically argued that it doesn't matter who is in control. The fact that no option is totally ideal is just a fact of life (consider a manager with options late in the game -- the fact no pitcher is perfect does not mean all are equal options in that spot). Likewise, sure, individual members of a party might be good or bad (some so bad, or counterproductive, party loyalty should only go so far -- see, Sen. Lieberman). But, right now a certain path must be taken to get real change.
And, yes, this involves a certain political party ... a result btw that can be seen partly in moral terms. Simply put, the current situation is bad for the country and promotes values that should be foreign to what we hold dear. In other words, Bushco is bad for public/political morality. So, this sort of complaint also doesn't convince.
---
* Two of the links in this piece is in connection to a Slate post of mine on the Kerry blog entry. I purposely left out the author, since there is an immature tendency of ignoring the substance of what some people say. Thus, the Al Gore documentary often is spoken about as much as a work of Gore as about global warning. In fact, even Frank Rich in today's NYT takes this approach.