<snip>
> In any event, to suggest that the principled
> opposition to Bork was somehow unfair and out
> of keeping with historical precedent is, to put
> it charitably, a dubious proposition.
The first half was not the proposition--I never said unfair. The proposition was that the Democrats discovered that they could use a mechanism to block judicial appointments where they disagreed philospohically. This had not been done before--it was infact unprecedented. They have since extended it to people much less extreme than Bork. The Republicans have retaliated. The point is that this dynamic is a loser for the people.
Powered by hypermail