Partisan hack
The Wall Street Journal’s James Taranto highlights some totally predictable partisan hackery by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne.
What Did the Founders Say Today?
- "If the Republicans pushing against the filibuster love majority rule so much, they should propose getting rid of the Senate altogether. But doing so would mean acknowledging what's really going on here: regime change disguised as a narrow rules fight. We could choose to institute a British-style parliamentary system in which majorities get almost everything they want. But advocates of such a radical departure should be honest enough to propose amending the Constitution first."--E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, March 22, 2005
- "The Founders said nothing in the Constitution about the filibuster, let alone 'reconciliation.' Judging from what they put in the actual document, the Founders would be appalled at the idea that every major bill should need the votes of three-fifths of the Senate to pass."--E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, March 4, 2010
This is what gets me when it comes to too many columnists – the casual dismissal of principle in the service of a partisan moment. It’s especially odious when they fail to disclose their previous position. It would be a breath of fresh air if Dionne would just come out and say that he’s against the filibuster when it’s stopping something he likes (99.9% of the time something Democrats want done) and he’s for the filibuster when it’s stopping something the Republicans want done.
His references to history are nothing more than hand-waving to distract notice from his partisanship.
For the record, I opposed the supermajority requirement that Democrats imposed on President Bush’s judicial nominees during the latter half of his presidency. I will oppose it if it is used against President Obama’s nominees – though, to be sure, Obama deserves having it done to him too.
One comment on “Partisan hack”
Tags
I opposed the filibuster against judicial nominees because it had not been done before (with rare exceptions). Hey, man, you won the election, you get to choose the judges. Now Dionne and Krugman - who LOVED the filibuster during Dubya's term - find it repugnant.
Tough.