Nuclear Option - The Compromise

I have never understood conservatives' argument about the need for every single one of the president's judicial nominees to get an up-or-down vote. There is no such right accorded in the Constitution to either the president or his nominees. The Constitution requires a process of senatorial advice and consent, under which the president

"... shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law [Article II, Section 2]..."

I have heard conservatives describe the up-or-down vote variously as a right and as a courtesy. No such right exists. I have no problem with courtesy between the White House and the Senate. However, I think that the president might begin by extending senators the courtesy of not nominating such extreme characters as William Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown.

As far as the compromise goes, I disagree with some commentators, such as TAP's Michael Tomasky, who think the "extraordinary circumstances" language puts Democrats at a disadvantage when it comes time for the president to make a Supreme Court nomination.

Given the relationship that the Bush Republican Party has cultivated with the religious right, it will be practically impossible for the president to nominate anyone to the high court who is not an avowed opponent of abortion and gay rights. A nominee to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist will have a much higher profile than a nominee to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Any Supreme Court nominee will have to have the approval of James Dobson and Tony Perkins stamped into his or her forehead. Democrats could justify filibustering such a person under even the most, dare I say, conservative definition of the word "extraordinary."