Nat Hentoff defends Charles Pickering and denounces the tactics of the Democrats and especially their backers. (via Instapundit)

He's right, of course, but there's very little discussion about the root of this problem or the future it forebodes. The source is the lack of judicial restraint in the past, a willingness to use the power of the judiciary to achieve goals for which there is no overall political consensus. The fact that judges are practically unaccountable to the democratic processes which govern the other branches under our republican system has always been a temptation, but until relatively recently the courts were aware that their assumption of the power of judicial review rested largely upon the willingness of the other branches to submit to it, and they didn't push it. But now nobody would dare challenge the power of the Supreme Court to dictate political results clothed in the guise of constitutional interpretation. The civil rights cases are an example of sound judicial intervention when political institutions had been unable to achieve correct results.

The abortion rulings are an illustration of the danger of judicial activism. They have resulted in the spectacles of the Bork and Thomas confirmation hearings and now the filibustering of nominees by the minority party of the Senate.