The Washington Times

The Republican Party is in political trouble as a result of the compromise on judicial nominees, but the situation is hardly beyond recovery: Democrats, too, are in some peril.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

If the White House has seemed a bit adrift on domestic matters, my guess is that’s because they know something you don’t know: The entire domestic debate is about to be taken up by a battle royale over two Supreme Court nominations. Social Security may not be going anywhere, but it makes little sense to try to introduce another major initiative when in a few weeks’ time we are likely to have the mother of all partisan confrontations.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

The latest compromise proposal on the question of confirming judges goes like this: A self-selecting group of six senators each from the Republican Party and the Democratic Party agree that: 1) The filibuster rule will not change; and 2) the filibuster will not be used to prevent a floor vote in which there is a Senate majority in favor of the nominee except in the most extraordinary circumstances.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

I have been wracking my brain for a while now for a good reason for Republicans in the Senate not to get rid of the filibuster in the case of judicial nominees. You know, something about the higher need for comity, respect for the traditions of the “world’s greatest deliberative body,” the need for majorities to act with restraint so that minorities do not feel oppressed, etc.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Washington Times

Guess who’s in the doghouse in Europe? French President Jacques Chirac, that’s who.

Read the rest of this entry »