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

Dems preparing to thwart democracy on next Supreme Court nominee

Washington Post:

The upcoming battle over a successor to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor threatens to plunge the Senate into another bitter confrontation over filibusters and the "nuclear option," with Democrats already threatening to use any means possible to thwart President Bush if he nominates someone they regard as too conservative.

The roster of those threatening a filibuster includes liberal and moderate Democrats, supporters and opponents of John G. Roberts Jr., Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, and at least one of the seven Democratic senators who were part of the bipartisan "Gang of 14."

Democrats have splintered almost evenly over Roberts's nomination as chief justice, leading to frustration among party activists who think their elected leaders did not put up a serious fight against him. Pollsters have told party leaders that a show of opposition against Bush's next nominee could be crucial to restoring enthusiasm among the rank and file on the left.

In an interview, Dean said Democratic unity is essential in the upcoming battle and that the party "absolutely" should be prepared to filibuster -- holding unlimited debate and preventing an up-or-down vote -- Bush's next high court nominee, if he taps someone they find unacceptably ideological. He cited appellate court judges Priscilla R. Owen and Janice Rogers Brown as two who would be likely to trigger such opposition.

Of course the Dems could be the biggest losers if they cannot get five Republicans to join a traitorous move against the leadership. Without enough turncoat Republicans the filibustering of judicial nominees will no longer be permitted. I think opposition to Pricilla Owens would prevoke a change of the rules that would take away all Democrat leverage. It should. Their bad faith use of the rules to avoid a majority vote on nominees should not be permitted.