Perusing
this story on the Santorum/Delay offensive on the independent judiciary, I noticed a key passage on the "nuclear option":
In separate remarks at a courthouse dedication in Massachusetts, Kennedy said Schiavo's case underscored the need for an independent federal judiciary. He said the decision by the GOP-controlled Congress to intervene in her case was part of a pattern that includes talk of changing Senate rules to override Democratic opposition to President Bush's judicial appointments...
At the same time, public opinion polls show widespread public disapproval of Congress' decision to intervene in Schiavo's case. Two Republican congressional aides, speaking on condition of anonymity, said they hoped the two issues did not become linked in the public's mind.[emphasis mine]
Congress' intervention in the Schiavo case is unpopular, and from the polling I've seen, the nuclear option is unpopular as well. Of course, it would seem like a good idea to link the two issues. So why are two Republican staffers gabbing to a reporter about how Republicans want to avoid that scenario?
Is it a head fake, designed to equally enmesh Democrats in negative partisan politics over a family tragedy? And if this is true (and if the Republicans could pull it off), why should the Democrats risk turning two wins into a draw?
Of course, we haven't really "won" anything yet. To the extent that we've had a net gain politically after congressional intervention in the Schiavo case, it's because we avoided immolating ourselves like the Republicans did. And we may be winning polls on the filibuster issue, but at this stage, not many Americans are going to change their vote based on changes in arcane Senate procedure. Worse, according to a Newseek poll (the same one that shows public disapproval of limiting filibusters on judicial nominations), Americans also disapprove of Democrats grinding the Senate to a halt in retaliation.
As many have noted, this is a battle we will lose if we allow it to decay into an abstract dissection of the history of the rules of the Senate. The Republicans will get their rule change AND their judicial confirmations, and our response will be characterized as either obstructionist or weak, depending on whether we push back or not. Luckily, the shining spectacle of hypocritical Republican interference in the Schiavo case gave us one more concrete example of why the filibuster rule must remain. Every time Republicans mention the "nuclear option", we should highlight how precious a truly independent judiciary is, just like Senator Kennedy did in the cited article.