A Filibuster? Bring It On
Thus spake Taranto in the Wall Street Journal today. The honorary member of the Coalition of the Chillin’ is quite unconcerned about any potential filibuster:
The Democrats could filibuster, a dilatory tactic that allows 41 senators to block a vote. This they did in 2003-04 to prevent the confirmation of a dozen or so appellate court nominees. But in May, under threat of the so-called nuclear option–a GOP maneuver that would have changed Senate rules to abolish judicial filibusters–seven Democratic senators agreed to a compromise in which they disavowed the filibuster except in “extraordinary circumstances.”
That exception carries the potential for mischief, but it is unlikely to be realized. Five of the seven compromising Democrats come from states President Bush carried last year, as do 11 other Senate Democrats. These senators are no doubt mindful that their former leader, Tom Daschle, lost re-election in November in substantial part because of his obstruction of judicial nominees. With constituents much more conservative than Mr. Schumer’s, they are far less inclined to do the bidding of extremist groups like People for the American Way. Thus red-state Democrats voted 13-3 in favor of Chief Justice Roberts, while more than two-thirds of blue-state Democrats opposed him. Anyway, if the Democratic compromisers do dishonor their agreement, Republicans can retaliate by going nuclear, vaporizing the filibuster forever.
Put another way, the odds of a filibuster are exceedingly remote, and even if employed, it won’t succeed…
UPDATE 9:14 a.m. central: The Commissar: “Bush’s nominee will go through; if filibustered, the filibuster will be overruled then.” It really is that simple.