Advice and Dissent The New York Times suggests that Bush's conservative judicial nominees must be defeated at all cost.

There is a danger that despite the
Republicans' record of blockading well-qualified, moderate
judicial nominees during the Clinton administration, Democrats
in the Senate will become tired of being called obstructionist and
give way.

There is too much at stake for that to happen.

I sent the following letter to the editors:

It's already clear what most politicians consider the minimum standards for approving a judge: he/she has to agree with them on all judicial issues with political ramifications. And since we can't trust evasive nominees to tell us how they are likely to vote, we just can't take the chance on anyone with a conservative/liberal record. It no longer matters whether
a judge is intelligent and writes well-reasoned opinions based on the law, he/she has to give
us the certainty that he/she will vote the way we want when called upon to do so.

It used to be that such matters weren't that important, but with more and more political
issues being determined by courts rather than democratic politics, the selection of judges
has become more important for those who know they can't win on, say, the floor of the
Senate or in the polling booths.

This deadlock is the natural result of relying on courts to settle what are basically political issues. When we become so intent on having our own way that we no longer care how we
win, as long as we do win, we will increasingly turn to non-democratic means, such as
lawsuits, and who the judges are will become increasingly a matter to be controlled in
advance, as well.