Extraordinary Inconsistency

Byron York in The Hill does a nice job of deconstructing the "deal" made by the John McCain and the 13 dwarves, and points out how amazingly inconsistent the whole process of confirming judges really is:

If you have been trying to come up with a logical pattern in those statements, forget it. There isn’t one. The fact is that the deal reached by the “Gang of 14” to avert Republican use of the nuclear/constitutional/Byrd option has revealed the arbitrariness and incoherence of the judicial confirmation process.

Start with Owen.

Democrats filibustered her for years. The main reason was their objection to the way she read a bypass clause in a Texas law requiring underage girls to notify their parents — not get their approval, just notify them — before having an abortion. For that, Democrats called Owen an activist and an ideologue.

They dug in their heels and threw out two centuries of Senate tradition to stop her.

And now they’re letting her through? Why?
And what about Pryor? The former attorney general of Alabama, Pryor was, like Owen, filibustered mostly over the issue of abortion. But unlike Owen, who appeared the picture of moderation at her confirmation hearing, Pryor, when he went before the Judiciary Committee back in June 2003, made no attempt to hide his views.

For example, Pryor had in the past called Roe v. Wade “the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law.”

At the hearing, when Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) read Pryor’s words to him and asked him whether he still believed that, Pryor answered, simply, “I do.”

Later, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), trying to give Pryor an escape route, asked whether the “abomination” quote was accurate.

Pryor said that it was indeed accurate, and what was more, “I stand by that comment. I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children.”

Democrats called Pryor an extremist. They dug in their heels and threw out two centuries of Senate tradition to stop him.

And now they’re letting him through? Why?

Why did Pryor and Owen — not to mention Brown, who angered Democrats when she referred to the New Deal as America’s “socialist revolution” — once constitute such a threat to the judiciary that they were filibustered, and now they do not even rise to the level of “extraordinary circumstances”?

And just to throw in one other case, why did Democrats — back in 2002, when they were in the majority — approve the nomination of Michael McConnell to a place on the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals?

McConnell didn’t argue around the edges of the abortion debate. Instead, in 1998 he wrote an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal titled “Roe v. Wade at 25: Still Illegitimate.” He also wrote, in a law-review article, that “abortion is an evil, all too frequently and casually employed for the destruction of life.” And just so no one would be mistaken about where he stood, he endorsed a constitutional amendment that would outlaw abortion altogether.

So McConnell was confirmed — by Democrats! — while Owen and Pryor were filibustered.

The Gang of 14 are demanding that President Bush consult with them on future nominations, but given the amazing amount of confusion on just what kind of judge is acceptable, how is the president supposed to have any idea of who is acceptable and who isn't? If I was president, I would ignore these peons and keep nominating whoever I want.

I imagine that's just what President Bush will do.