James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal's "Best of the Web" points out the hypocrisy of the New York Times (yes, I know that's a full time job in itself) in this fine post about filibusters. (The passages he cites from the Times I print in bold.) "A Time-Honored Procedure" -- Oh, Wait! That Was Last Term!
Four years ago, when Republicans had a majority in the Senate and Democrats were using filibusters to block votes on President Bush's judicial nominees, the editorialists at the New York Times were aghast at the threat to "a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod." They also faulted the GOP for hypocrisy, since during the Clinton administration Republican senators had filibustered some presidential nominees (though not for the bench).
Now the Democrats are in the same position as the Republicans then: They hold the White House and a Senate majority shy of 60 votes. Predictably enough, the New York Times is now aghast that the Republicans may use a time-honored Senate procedure that prevents a bare majority of senators from running roughshod:
Republican senators have fired off an intemperate letter threatening--you got it--filibusters if Mr. Obama's nominees are not to their liking. Mr. Obama should not let the Republicans' saber-rattling interfere with how he chooses judges.
Arguments about procedure are often made cynically, and there are times when that is appropriate: The job of a lawyer in court, for instance, is to further the interests of his client; it is up to the judge to safeguard the integrity of the court's procedures. One could argue that the Times, as an advocate for liberal ideology, is not obliged to be overly concerned with procedure.
But imagine if a lawyer asked a judge to show favoritism toward his client in procedural rulings "because, your honor, my client is just right." Any competent judge would laugh at such a silly argument. Yet that is exactly the approach the Times takes here:
A filibuster can be an appropriate response when it is clear that a particular nominee would be a dangerous addition to the bench.
So a filibuster is fine to block a judge the Times doesn't like, but outrageous to block one it does like. There is nothing more to this argument than that the ends justify the means--in which case why bother making an obviously phony argument about the means?
