May 25, 2005
I know the New York Times has a clear left bias, but they often have well written articles that I enjoy, so I read them daily. However, occasionally they show how far left they really are biased and I can't help but be somewhat dumbfounded by their thoughts.Case in point? This little editorial on the recent agreement reached by 14 senators in regards to the judicial nominee problem. For those not familiar with it, the problem is basically that the Bush administration has put up five names of people it would like to appoint to federal judicial positions. This is done through a vote in the Senate, where the Republicans have a majority. However, the Democrats have insisted they will filibuster the nominees, making it so that no one even has a chance to vote for them. Since the Republicans have a majority, they threatened to kill the filibuster through a rules change. This is the "nuclear option." The agreement reached between the senators basically stated that they would let three of the nominees get a yes or no vote, and the other two would basically disappear. They also agreed to use the filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances."The Times here states their opinion on it, saying the Democrats paid a high price in the negotiation:
Posted by charr at 11:26 AM
"...the seven Democrats involved in the negotiations paid a high price - allowing the nominations of three of President Bush's most controversial nominees to the federal Courts of Appeals to go through to an up-or-down vote..."Excuse me? I don't understand how the Times can ethically say this. The Republicans are just asking them to let the Senate vote on the nominees and in exchange are dropping two of the candidates. It's the Republicans here who are being manipulated by the minority.
But it was ok when Republicans filibustered Clinton's nominees for the court of appeals. It's only crazy when Dems do it, because only leftists have ulterior, sinister motives.
My main point here was the irony of the statement that the Democrats got the short end of the stick, when, to me, the Republicans did. However, since you mention it, my understanding is that more appeals court nominees were cleared by Republicans in Clinton's term than in Bush. Plus, at least during a chunk of that, the Republicans had a majority of the Senate.That said, it's true that both parties have used the filibuster. Back in 1995, when Republicans were using it, The NY Times was against it. At any rate, I think it is generally undemocratic, and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances.