The Judicial Filibuster
Filibuster reform is all the rage in the progressive blogs these days. I am not a fan of filibuster reform at this time for results oriented reasons. Now is not the time to make the passage of legislation easier, given the extreme GOP controlled House and a supine Dem President.
But I also have an objection on the philosophical merits to filibuster reform regarding judicial nominations. My old law professor Bruce Ackerman revisits this issue and turns back to an article he wrote in 2005, when opposing filibuster reform was all the rage in the progressive blogs.
My objections are, and were in 2005, as a matter of substance, to elimination of the filibuster to lifetime appointments to the Third Branch of our government, the Supreme Court. As Professor Ackerman says, "[m]y bottom line: the separation of powers should become a fundamental part of serious talk about the filibuster."
Speaking for me only
|< Geithner As Santa Claus: It's Always Christmas For The Banks | Edwards Grand Jury Hears From Fred Baron's Widow >|