Citizen Journal

During Bush v. Gore, the mature, statesmanlike course would have been for both candidates to say, "I have no opinion on how the dispute over ballots in Florida should be resolved." The model-citizen response for partisans would have been to take positions for and against the recount based purely on abstract grounds of what process is best. Many liberals would have said, "While I much prefer Gore, in such a near-tied election, it's best to accept the apparent result-- that Bush won-- than to obsess over every last ballot, losing precious time for the new president-elect to prepare for his administration, particularly since the result is unlikely to change and will never be certain." Many conservatives would have said, "While I prefer Bush, it's essential that the mandate of the future president have the highest possible degree of legitimacy. We should make sure to count every vote."

Like dimpled chads, the filibuster is a process issue. Before the argument began, I was naively in favor of judicial filibuster, thinking it was part of tradition. Over the past couple of weeks, writers from Krauthammer to Althouse to Hugh Hewitt have convinced me that filibustering judges is anything but traditional. I now oppose the judicial filibuster.

That said, it's better if process changes are made on process grounds, not for partisan reasons.

So while I support both Bush's judicial picks and the elimination of the judicial filibuster, I welcome the deal. If Republicans truly believe the judicial filibuster is a bad rule (and I hope they do), they can change it later, when it doesn't look like they're changing the rules just to win the game.