Now that the filibuster situation has come to a temporary halt and it's being pushed off the front page, it's time for me to follow my time-honored tradition of talking about issues people care about after they care about them.

The issue can be broken down into two sides of the same question: Is the unprecedented planned filibustering of over half a dozen judges egregious enough to justify doing away with the rules that have been in place for a few decades now?

There are two ways that I can approach this issue. I can approach it as an ideological partisan that does not want to see any more "compromises" like Justice Souter, or I can approach it as a political philosopher considering my fictional parties, the modern Federalists and Whigs. Since most of my current readers weren't around for the whole Feddies/Whigs thing, the basic premise is that I created two political parties and belief systems between which I am completely divided. Sometimes I can look at it through the lens of the politics that fictional superhero world with a sort of detachment that I cannot when I see an (R) or (D) by a particular politician's name.

From an ideological standpoint, I am very disappointed to see the Democrats in a position to tell Bush who he can and cannot appoint to the federal judiciary. I am disappointed that the Republicans have allowed the Democrats to frame the issue as though the filibustering of judges is the norm and changing senate rules is not (senate rules change all the time, only one judge who never enjoyed majority support has ever been filibustered). And I have lost a good deal of faith in Senate Majority Leader Frist, who has managed to become the second most powerful person in the Senate, if that.

To be frank, there are a number of issues that I disagree with the President's nominees on. Some of them appear to be well to my right politically and therefore, theoretically, I ought to support Bush's hand being tipped towards more moderate nominees. Here's my general problem with that: Judges move to the left after appointment. As the New York Times loves to put it, they "grow in to office." To take an example, take a look at the Supreme Court. There are four liberals, three conservatives, and two pro-Roe and pro-campaign finance, and pro-affirmative action moderates. Here's the rub: all but two of the justices of this court were appointed by Republicans. The two Democratic nominees, Breyer and Ginsburg, are, to say the least, not moderate. And with time, as I said a couple sentences ago, judges seem to move to the left.

As such, I'm not just worried about Justice Owen being the next Reinquist (especially if she is taking his spot), but I'm also quite worried about Justice Alberto Gonzalez being the next David Souter. I'm content to take a chance on Gonzalez to keep Reinquist's spot conservative, but I am extremely wary of replacing a conservative with a "moderate." The temptation to try to make history behind the robe is great for liberals and conservatives alike. To give you an indication of how strongly I feel about this, I am worried that a compromise pick like Orrin Hatch could turn a 180. And I don't trust the Democrats for one minute to decide who is in the mainstream and who is wacko-conservative (to be fair, if I was a liberal I wouldn't trust the Republicans. It's an ideological issue more than a moral/ethical one).

So with all the above in mind, part of me really wants to stick with Bush and whomever he nominates unless his position and name have the initials A.G.

But I'm not so short-sighted as to believe there aren't consequences to quashing the filibuster. Republicans won't have the senate forever (though, to look at the map, they do have a pretty natural advantage for a while at least). Maybe I don't trust the Democrats not to turn a 180 on nixing the filibuster when the positions are at their worst, but to the extent you assume it to be so it will become so.

There are larger issues at hand right now than who Bush picks for the court. And I am generally pretty good (better than I let on, actually) about seeing both sides of the issue. So out with Democrats and Republicans and in with the Majority and Minority Parties.

The Majority Party believes, not incorrectly, that the Constitution does not require a 3/5 majority for "advise and consent" in the Constitution. It says that nowhere in the Constitution and it has generally been so by tradition rather than Constitutional Mandate. So the Majority Party is quite angry that the Minority Party can talk all day about tradition when it comes to uphold the filibuster but ignore the tradition (with one exception many decades ago) of not filibustering the President's picks. Particularly when they know that the pick has a majority of votes (whereas above counterexample did not). The Majority Party also sees more and more vacant seats and they know that if those seats are not filled while their president is in office, they will be filled while the other president is in office. They know this because the judges they held back prior to their president's election have spots that they are now seeking to fill with their guys (and gals). But there are legitimate concerns here that the Minority Party has a vested interest in finding any and all of the president's picks unacceptable. Time is, after all, on their side. If not in four years than in eight or twelve.

The Minority Party, on the other hand, believes that without requiring more than a majority the President can appoint very radical nominees. If the Majority Party can control their own, and most of the members of the Majority Party have constituents that are well to one side or the other of the rest of the nation (as is true with both parties), there are little safeguards to prevent a complete lunatic from getting a judgeship beyond trusting the opposing party (which neither side does - and for good reason!). The Senate has traditionally been the "more deliberative" body where most of the compromise gets done. I'm personally not sure about the compromises, but I the thought of requiring more votes to get laws passed does warm my anti-government heart. Except that somewhere along the lines my side wants to change more things and the other side wants more things to say the same. That might have something to do with which party is the Majority Party and which direction those changes are more likely to go. But regardless, on the whole I do prefer gummed up works rather than a parliamentary system where a slim majority passes whatever it wants.

And the scary part is that these appointments, lunatic or no, last forever! (or until death or resignation of said justice, whichever comes first. It'd probably be death or resignation, but even if so that could well be forty years down the line.

And, of course, throughout all of this the partisans on both sides are making their case that the very Constitution is at stake. Members of the Minority Party who thought getting rid of the filibuster when they were in the majority was a good idea suddenly reconsider because of the extremism of the President that was elected by the majority of the public. Members of the Majority Party who had no problem letting the other team's president's picks die in committee without a complete up-and-down vote are considering it completely outrageous that their guy's picks might not get a full vote.

And somewhere along the way, people like me start paying more attention to Blockbuster Online, cable TV, and CDR Indexing.

But now that my position is irrelevent (as though it were ever relevent!), I can give my thoughts. Here they are:

• I think that every justice should be voted on by the entire Senate. No dying in committee, dying by filibuster, or dying by blue slip.
• And I think that it's generally a good to require more votes to get things done.
• And try as I might, I cannot honestly reconcile the two. And frankly, I'm a bit suspicious of anyone that does not believe there are competing ideals at stake here or believes that only one of the ideals really matters.
• And I wish that I could trust the Democrats a lot more when it came to reasonable nominations.
• And I'm sure they wish they could do the same for Republicans.
• And I'm gonna go sit somewhere else and think/do something else instead of sitting here thinking about this.