Byron York. Why haven't I been reading his columns?

I have to admit that I don't read as much as I should. My eyes bother me lately, and I suffer from ADD. But Byron York is that most rare thing in media, a reporter. He digs through the records and unspins the news. His piece about the history of the filibuster in opposing judicial nominees in National Review compacts the whole story, and clarifies the claims by the Democrats that Republicans established a precedent for using the filibuster to prevent nominees from coming to a floor vote.

Personally, I'm not sure whether Bush's nominees will perform as expected even if they do get on the court. A lot of Republican nominees, thought to be moderate when nominated, have turned out like Justice Souter. I think that Bush's nominees have been more carefully vetted, but the absolute power of a Supreme Court justice can do strange things to a person. Power corrupts. And the power of the Supreme Court today is practically unlimited, since we have allowed it to be the final word on what the Constitution requires. That power is based on acquiescence, but it has become so entrenched and amending the Constitution has become so difficult that there is practically no way to overrule the court. Until there is some practical way to do so, the courts will continue to provoke all out battles in the Senate, which hurt the whole government, but the public's trust in SCOTUS is its most precious asset, and that is now in danger.