We're heading for a showdown

As we see in this wapo article, when it comes to environmental concerns, Bush does believe in recycling in at least one area... judicial nominees. The same pack of a half dozen or so heavily biased, extremely conservative nominees for Federal judge posts are coming back to the Senate. Last time out, the Democrats shut them down with a filibuster. While the numbers are a bit tighter this time, it looks like the same fate awaits them this year.

A new hearing yesterday on a recycled nomination did nothing to lessen the likelihood of a dramatic Senate showdown this spring over President Bush's judicial appointees, key senators said.

Appellate court nominee William G. Myers III's second hearing in two years largely echoed the first: Democrats attacked his environmental record and Republicans defended it. When it ended, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said nothing had changed. He said he counts 58 Senate votes favoring Myers's confirmation, putting supporters within "hailing distance" of the 60 needed to overcome Democrats' stalling tactics.

Instead of gaining ground, however, Myers's backers appeared to be struggling not to lose it. Sen. Ken Salazar (Colo.), one of the Democrats Specter is banking on, sent a letter to Bush urging him to withdraw Myers's nomination and those of other judicial appointees whom Democrats blocked last year.

It remains to be seen if Frist will be foolish enough to invoke the nuclear option.

Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) said filibusters of judicial nominees "can't be tolerated by the American people." He again held out the possibility of ruling such filibusters unconstitutional -- the so-called nuclear option -- which would trigger a fierce retaliation, Democrats say. But for now, Frist said, "I'm trying to show restraint."

Moments later, Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) delivered a floor speech denouncing any strategy that would "curtail the right of extended debate in this hallowed chamber. . . . The claim that no right exists to filibuster judges aims an arrow straight at the heart of the Senate's long tradition of unlimited debate. . . . We, unlike Nazi Germany or Mussolini's Italy, have never stopped being a nation of laws."

Myers would preside over a court that will often have to hear controversial ecological and conservation matters. Unfortunately, he used to be a lobbyist for mining and grazing interests, and an Interior Department solicitor. To say that his background is a bit biased is to bring understatement to a whole new level.

Why is it that Bush can't see his way clear to finding some moderate choices without built in prejudices and corrupting influences? He's gotten almost all of his other nominations through with no problems at all. There are a number of pressing issues waiting to be debated on the Senate floor this session. If he wants them to see the light of day, why on Earth would he move forward with a provocative action which he surely must know will tie the Senate up into a snarled mess for weeks on end? Does the man have nobody to advise him any more?

From the right wing, even Betsy Newmark seems to think that Myers might not have been the best choice for the first candidate to put up. Armando at Kos points out some language which is appropriate for an opposition party.