SO, IT HAS COME TO THIS

Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada made a remarkable statement yesterday, as part of his overall speech announcing his opposition to John Roberts as Chief Justice. "The President is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary", he said. Say what? Pardon me, Senator Reid, but I thought the Constitution was pretty explicit about the process, whereby the President chooses judges with the 'advice and consent of the Senate'. Two centuries of Senators have consistently given the President a great deal of deference when choosing his nominees. Even if you set aside the Constitutional duty that seems to exist, purely as a partisan matter it doesn't make sense to give the President of the other party no deference as a President of your party would, doubtless, suffer the same fate when the situation is reversed. The Washington Post's lead editorial makes the point.

Here is yet another insidious consequence of judicial activism and, especially, the Roe decision. Since unelected judges are now making political decisions based on their personal policy preferences, then the process of appointing them must become wholly political. That is to say, no judge appointed by a President of one party, no matter how well qualified, can be consented to by the other party. Therefore, if a Democrat is elected President in 2008, but the GOP maintains a majority in the Senate, by that logic no judge would be confirmed in that four year period. Does Harry Reid understand this? I think he does.