What would Reagan do?
In this case, I think he'd respond to Democrat threats to shut down the Senate with his favorite quote from Dirty Harry, "Go ahead. Make my day." This is the time for a showdown. I think I know what Reagan and George W. Bush would do. If Bill Frist wants to be a leader, he needs to lead with decisiveness.
Glenn Reynolds is attacking Frist for being willing to use the Family Research Council to build support for ending the filibuster. This is alarmist thinking. I don't know anything about the Family Research Council, but even if they're as radical as Glenn thinks, I don't read anything into the fact that Frist is seeking their help in reaching part of the Republican base. We've been hearing that we're in danger of a theocracy if George Bush gets to appoint some justices to the Supreme Court, ever since he got elected, but I would remind the worriers that what Republicans are asking for it to give these nominees a floor vote. If they were such raging theocrats as they're being portrayed, I don't think they'd get past that vote.
Most religious people in this country believe in religious freedom and in many libertarian principles. Glenn and others are trying to portray us as want to impose religion on everybody, but the fact is that the courts have been hostile to many peoples' religious beliefs, as many neolibertarians are. I don't think that wanting to restore the traditional standard of tolerance is an effort toward theocracy, or "tyranny of the majority." When the default rule allows atheists to veto everybody else, that's not theocracy.
This is what I find so odd about the argument that the religious right has too much influence or is a danger to minority rights. It portrays society as being tolerant only when it won't allow anybody in public office to mention his/her religious beliefs. I belong to a church which suffered real persecution, to the extent that they moved out of the states to be able to practice their religion without being physically attacked. The failure of the government to protect their rights to live in peace and the security of their property rights is more shameful than anything except slavery. Now we're being told that politicians need to steer clear of association with religious people. That's anti-libertarian in a country that was founded in part on freedom of religion, speech and association.
I've always found Instapundit to be respectful of the views of others, but his alarmism about the indignation with judges is as over the top as the calls for impeaching justices. Why is it that liberal Democrats can openly campaign in African American churches and nobody brings up Church and State, but if Republicans even appear on the same stage with Evangelical Christians, of which I am NOT one, the very Constitution is being threatened.