Kevin McCullough, May 2, 2005

The two leaders of the respective parties in the United States Senate both unveiled suggested plans on how to "fix" the judicial nominee/illegal filibuster impasse this week.

Senator Harry Reid and the Democrat's version went roughly like this: Drop the two female nominees - especially the conservative African American. We dems will let two more through, we will fight over another who was appointed in a recess appointment, and we get to keep the illegal filibusters against your future appointments - especially with Supreme Court nominees to be named later.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, before making a counter offer made an observation. The Democrats complaint has been that in the past the Republicans kept their nominees bottled up in committee, the Republicans complain that the Democrats use illegal filibusters to prevent straight up or down votes.

Thusly Frist offered this: If Republicans guarantee that future nominations will not be bottled up in committee (thus satisfying the Democrat's complaint), then the Democrats should respectfully abstain from the use of the filibuster as it pertains to judicial nominees in the future as well. (Thus satisfying the Republican's complaints).

He went on to observe that both sides have exceeding frustrations with the process. But he also insisted that every Circuit Court and Supreme Court nominee deserves an up or down vote.

And historically this is what they've always received.

And it was my remembering the confirmation of Clarence Thomas that brought this back home to me.

For all of Chuck Schumer's, Hillary Clinton's, and Dick Durbin's verbose verbal vomit over rules changes in the past week - a question went unanswered in my mind.

If filibusters were the historical precedent that they say they are now, why did no one introduce a filibuster on arguably the most controversial Supreme Court nomination of my lifetime?

Liberals certainly were eager to do anything they could to stop Justice Clarence Thomas from being confirmed. The amount of verbal pornography they dragged the country through turned out largely to an invention of their own imagination. But with all the invective that they could muster - wouldn't it have been so much easier to simply filibuster?

Of course it would. But they didn't because it was not the practice, nor the intent of the legitimate use of the filibuster to be applied in such a manner. Nor should it be so now.

As one examines the two plans listed above. One casually offers a token appointment or two to the party that won the most recent round of elections - and in convincing fashion. It is a sore loser's attempt to ruthlessly try to hang on to power - when democracy itself did not seed it to them.

The other is a careful examination of the true obstruction problem, offered with sensitivity to the concerns of both parties.

So how did Senator Harry Reid receive the kind and gracious offer that Senator Frist crafted so carefully to address both sides' concerns?

Reid called it a "big fat wet kiss to the far right".

Evidently Reid is still obsessed with that verbal pornography thing.

Kevin McCullough is heard daily in New York City, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware on AM 570 WMCA and AM 970 WWDJ from 1-4pm.

Copyright © 2005 Kevin McCullough