David Espo gets it
Espo's piece isn't a big wet kiss to the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy; he also takes care to point out how the Dems have jumped sides over the years. But he seems to realize that being "fair and balanced" doesn't necessarily involve unzipping Republican trou.
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Time was, Republicans buried Bill Clinton's judicial picks by the dozen in the Senate Judiciary Committee and Democrats indignantly demanded a yes-or-no vote for each.
That was then.
This is now, when Democrats block a far smaller number of President Bush's court nominees - and Republicans heatedly insist the Constitution itself requires a vote.
"Give them a vote. A vote up or down," Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah said recently, speaking of seven appeals court nominees Democrats have vowed to block. "That's what we've always done for 214 years before this president became president."
Except for more than 60 nominees whose names Clinton sent to the Senate between 1995 and 2000.
Republicans didn't resort to filibusters in many of those cases. They didn't need to.
They controlled the levers of Senate power at the time, and simply refused to schedule action on the nominations they opposed. Hatch, a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee, played a pivotal role in the blockade.
Incidentally, as I write this, a poll accompanying this piece on AOL (you know, that infamous mouthpiece for MoveOn, Media Matters and the like) indicates that 84% of their closeted-commie subscribers think Frist's push to ban the filibuster is all about politics rather than principle, and two-thirds oppose a rule change.