Should Republicans go ahead and add Supreme Court Justices to head off Democrats

For Dems compromise is agreeing with them

Sheryl Gay Stolberg:

On the second floor of the Capitol, in an ornate chamber where senators greet visitors, the stern visage of Henry Clay peers out from a gilded frame. Clay, of course, was the Great Compromiser, and for a moment last week it was possible to imagine his ghost hovering in the corridors.

First 14 senators struck a bipartisan compromise to avert a showdown on President Bush's judicial nominees. Next, Republicans and Democrats in the House passed a bill expanding federal financing for embryonic stem cell research, only to run into a threatened presidential veto. Then Democrats revived the filibuster - the tactic at the heart of the judicial fight - to delay the confirmation of John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations.

As suddenly as the spirit of Clay had revived, it vanished. Left behind was a question: What has happened to the art of political compromise?

Sheryl what happened is Democrat bad faith. When Bush made his first nominations to appeal courts, including Pricella Owens, he renominated two Democrats who had been previously blocked. The Democrat response was an unprecedented filibuster of Owens and others. After seven Republicans betrayed the party and the PResident to "compromise" with Dems to prevent future filibusters, the Dems waited two days to show bad faith and filibuster Bolten. You also forget all the compromising Bush did with Ted Kennedy and the Dems to get the no child left behind act passed even giving up its most important provision, school choice vouchers. Democrats still rant about the act. Today's Democrats only see compromise when Republicans agree to do what they want. Bad faith, thy name is Democrat.