EMAIL OF THE DAY II

“You link to dalythoughts.com as a “persuasive” piece of evidence. Didn’t you notice something terribly misleading about the setup? Daly concedes that “it is clear that things have been on a downhill trend since the Carter Presidency,” yet his damning tables compare the first terms of the various presidencies. This masks the downward trend since 1992, of course, by skipping only Clinton’s second term. (G.H.W. Bush never had one, as you’ll recall.) It is instructive instead to compare G.W. Bush I with Clinton II, since those are consecutive terms. When you do, you find that Clinton had 64 nominations, Bush 66. Clinton had 35 confirmed, Bush 35. Clinton had two withdraw; Bush has had one withdraw. Clinton had 27 rejected by the Senate; Bush 31. Strikingly similar, no? There’s really no excuse besides a polemical one for only comparing first terms – a comparison of the whole presidencies would have shown that G. W. Bush is right in line with the modern trend. But Daly’s “persuasive evidence” has been parroted by other Righties from Professor Bainbridge to Rush Limbaugh (and you, I guess) and turned into even more misleading graphics in the Economist!
One final note: Daly’s data show that seven circuit court nominees were returned in the Kennedy/Johnson years, even when the Democrats had huge, filibuster-proof majorities throughout. I think this is a good reminder that it’s possible to doubt the worth of some nominations for non-partisan reasons. Some of Bush’s current nominees, to wit, just plain suck.” Another emailer makes a different point, pointing out that in 2004, 41.6 million Americans cast votes for Democratic Senate candidates, while just 38.1 million voted for Republicans. The 44 Democratic Senators represent 148,026,027 Americans; the 55 Republican senators represent 144,765,157. (Not including Vermont with a socialist or DC, where you might as well be a Mongolian in terms of Senate politics). Alas, this won’t wash. The Senate is undemocratic. Always has been. That’s partly its point. But when one party controls presidency, Senate and House, is the Senate judicial filibuster more defensible? On the basis of tradition, I’d say no. On the basis of accountability and resistance to one-party government, maybe.