Constitutional Checks and Balances 

One last political post before I go. I've tried to avoid talking about the whole filibuster and nuclear option thing... but then I saw this "interview" on MSNBC and a thought burst forth. I put interview in quotes because its between MSNBC and Tim Russert. Isn't that pretty much just like talking to yourself? Just write a commentary for God's sake. Anyway, here is the relevant passage:

MSNBC: If this is orchestrated by the White House, doesn't that raise additional questions about the independence of the branches of government?

Russert: That's one of the Democrats' points.

Republicans are quick to counter that when the Democrats were the majority, they changed the rules of filibuster from 67 votes of present and voting down to 60. So there is a precedent.
The fact is this White House and Republicans in the Senate are frustrated they can not confirm every judge they want. The Democrats counter, "That is what this government is all about. We are a minority party, and if you put forward people that were 'not extreme', they’d be confirmed." Both sides are feeling very passionate about their view.

That's when it struck me. The Democrats are being very clever about hiding what they're doing. This has nothing to do with "separation of powers". This has to do with the "separation of parties". The Constitution says that the President shall submit nominees to the Senate, where they will confirm them. Please pay close attention to the two powers involved... the President and the Senate. The Democrats are instead trying to make you believe that one party shall submit nominees, while the other party must confirm them. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say there shall be two parties in government. Nowhere does it say that its bad that both shall control two branches of government, or that it shouldn't be allowed, or that the minority power should have special powers during that period.

The executive branch nominates, the legislative confirms, and that's it. No Constitutional crisis (as the media loves to call it). Hell, the filibuster isn't even in the Constitution. The framer's intent was to have the people (read Legislature) confirm those justices. Well, that's not even technically true. The framer's intent was to have the state's confirm the nominees (remember that prior to the 17th Amendment, Senators were appointed by state legislatures).

My point is don't let all this crisis mumbo jumbo fool you. This is really about one party being pissed that they don't any power left. There is no constitutional provision for one party to be a check on another party. That's the business of the voters when they go to the polls. Don't worry though Democrats. At the rate the Republicans are spending, throwing away federalism, and trying to invade my personal life, you'll be back in power in short order where you can make the exact same mistakes they did.

Update: Ann Althouse has some more historical perspective on judicial nominees. For instance, the framer's considered a super-majority to reject nominees. And Ben Franklin thought that members of the law profession should nominate them from within their own ranks. Sort of like a Dilbert Principle for judges.