Compromise, Democrat Style

The Star Tribune ran a Tom Teepen piece that attempts to make the case that the proper course in resolving the Senate impasse over appellate judges is to give the Democrats what they want. He claims that the Dems are just being good citizens and in a neutral, non-partisan fashion are objecting to Bush's appellate picks because (in his words):

Senate Democrats, resorting to the filibuster that requires a 60-vote majority, have balked at only 10 Bush picks, all for appellate benches -- and all for cause, as either too thinly qualified or as bearing records that fix their jurisprudence far outside the mainstream.

What he doesn't tell us is the Democrats have adopted the up to now-unheard of tactic of filibustering judicial nominations to prevent a floor vote, and he never explains how these nominees are "too thinly qualified or as bearing records that fix their jurisprudence far outside the mainstream".

Since Mr. Teepen neglected to do this, let me point you to an article from a liberal law professor who has looked at the President"s nominees. He comes to a rather different conclusion about their qualifications.

(Link courtesy of Jewish World Review)

Update: I removed a reference to the number of appellate nominations made by President Bush because I may have used the wrong number. Since I don't have the right number handy, I changed the post rather than leave the error in place.