David Broder’s suggested compromise on the nuclear <$NoAd$> option …
The Democratic Senate leadership should agree voluntarily to set aside the continued threat of filibustering the seven Bush appointees to the federal appeals courts who were blocked in the last Congress and whose names have been resubmitted. In return, they should get a renewed promise from the president that he will not bypass the Senate by offering any more recess appointments to the bench and a pledge from Republican Senate leaders to consider each such nominee individually, carefully and with a guarantee of extensive debate in coming months.
Why can’t Broder just bite the bullet and make an argument on pure majoritarianism (a reasonable argument) rather than suggesting, as he does here, that the Democrats give up the lever of power represented by the filibuster in exchange for an unenforceable promise from the Republicans to be nice?
Perhaps we can all come together on a bipartisan basis and ask what Broder is smoking — and whatever it is, that he at least smoke it in Washington, so he’ll have some clue of what’s been happening in the capital for the last five years.
