Why bad things happen when Democrats are in control of Senate

Bill Kristol:

In the midterm elections of November 1986, six years into the Reagan presidency, the Republican party lost control of the Senate. Barely six weeks beforehand, that still-GOP-led body had handily confirmed two crucial Reagan Supreme Court appointments: Associate Justice William Rehnquist's promotion to the chief's job and Antonin Scalia's nomination to the resulting open seat. But the newly Democratic Senate of 1987 would not prove so accommodating. Robert Bork, the president's first choice to fill the vacancy left by retiring Justice Lewis Powell, would be famously--and roughly--rejected. Those midterm elections wound up mattering rather a lot.

They weren't the whole story, of course. As an individual, Bork was considerably more controversial than Scalia or Rehnquist had ever been. And with the court closely divided, the confirmation of a second judicial conservative was going to generate stiffer resistance than the first. But Bork would have had a much better shot with a Republican-controlled Senate--both because there simply would have been more votes for him, and because the majority controls the schedule and shapes the debate.

The effect of Bork's defeat did not end with Anthony Kennedy's joining the court in his place. The experience of the Bork loss undoubtedly influenced President George H.W. Bush's selection of a paper-trail-less nominee for his first court opening, David Souter....

Advanced--but not reached. Now the court teeters in the balance. President Bush may well have another vacancy to fill in the next two years, and his successor will probably have at least one or two new justices to appoint. A Republican Senate would confirm the next Roberts or Alito. A Democratic Senate might well not. And furthermore, facing a Democratic Senate, President Bush, or a Republican successor, might preemptively compromise and pick a Kennedy rather than a Roberts or an Alito.

What's more, right now, 16 of the 179 authorized judicial slots on the federal courts of appeal are vacant. So are 33 of the 678 district court positions. With a Republican Senate, President Bush could continue to reshape the federal judiciary over the next two years. Facing a Democratic Senate, he would make much less progress on the constitutionalist agenda at the heart of today's conservatism.

...

There are many reason to defeat Democrats, Kristol has hit on one of the key reasons. Democrats have been able to maintain their undemocratic agenda through the use of the judiciary and liberal judges who find clever ways to thwart democracy. with made up rights such as the recent decision of the New Jersey Supreme Court which ordered, yes ordered, the legislature to right legislation that they had no intention of writing and would not be supported politically by the voters of New Jersey. Democrats then wonder why there are so many people voting for constitutional bans on gay marriage. It is the only way to stop their undemocratic assault on the American culture. It is also why it is extremely important that President Bush be able to select judges who will uphold the democratic process, and stand up to this assault on our culture.