Matthew Yglesias

Matthew Yglesias: "As I see it, three different things were at stake. One was the high-level principle about whether or not it was okay for the Senate to operate under Calvinball rules. Democrats seem to have made no progress on this front. Another was the low-level issue that several of these nominees, and Janice Rogers Brown in particular, will make horrible judges. Democrats gave ground on this front. In the middle was the pseudo-principle that the filibuster is a pillar of American democracy. It was here -- on the party's most questionable contention -- that they seem to have made all their gains. That seems pretty dubious to me. I would much rather have made 'concessions' on the filibuster as such as gains on the question of who gets to be a judge."



I am holding out hope that the moderate Republicans agreed, as is rumored, to vote Janice Rogers Brown down.



Democrats have repeatedly made the point that they have rejected only a small percentage of President Bush's choices, but no one makes the point that the Republicans, after rejecting 60 of Clinton's nominees, have not rejected a single one of Bush's. That's an appalling record. The Senate is not doing its job, if it takes its marching orders from President Bush. If the moderate Republicans reject at least one nominee, they will have demonstrated their willingness to do their jobs as Senators.