|
Both parties have used any number of parlimentary tricks in the past to contest judicial appointments, Liquor.
The democrats are using the filibuster here, just as the Republicans frequently held up Clinton prospects in committee and such. (Don't even get me started on Orrin Hatch's changing 'interpretations' of the blue slip rule.)
The rules allow for all of these precedures - they are entirely legal and with established bipartisan precedent. It is not really morally consistant for the Republican party to now demand a straight vote for all nominees when just a few years ago they were pulling the same stuff that we see from the Dems today.
That having been said, the merits of a check against a tyranny of the majority, in my opinion, outweigh the very real democratic dilemmas. I'm glad that neither major party can monopolize the agenda with only (in the Senate) an equal amount of senators in the opposition (50-50 with VP tiebreak). Checks are a large part of our government's structure.
And obviously, if the people felt that filibustering was not helpful, they would employ the ultimate check (voting) the perpetrators out of office.
__________________
The tragedy of life is what dies inside a man while he lives.
-- Albert Schweitzer
|