Captain Ed of Captains Quarters is a passionate man. Upon seeing that the Senate was going to pass a resolution apologizing to the American people for filibustering anti-lynching laws during the last 100 years, the Captain let it all hang out:

The more I think about this story, the more incensed I become. The Gang of Fourteen stood in front of the American people and proclaimed that rescuing the filibuster amount to “saving the Republic”, and the other thirteen stood there and endorsed that point of view from Robert Byrd, of all people.

What I would like to know is what lives the Senate saved through the filibuster? What overarching principle has the filibuster ever protected that would counter the cost of the innumerable victims of lynching that the filibuster allowed? The only principle the filibuster has ever protected, as far as I see, is naked partisanship and in the case of lynching, racial oppression and terror. And yet, these same modern-day Senators stood with a man who used the filibuster to keep blacks from voting and justified its use against confirming judges to the appellate court.

I too was nauseated at the sanctimoniousness exhibited at that press conference. The shameless preening before the cameras by those Senators – both Democratic and Republican – reminded me of a gaggle of peacocks strutting in the barnyard hoping to get laid. Pretty good for a peacock, but unbecoming a bunch of United States Senators.

My beef with the so-called compromise rested on the assumption that elections mean something:

The idea that a minority should be able to dictate to the President on judicial nominations or anything else for that matter, goes against the very idea of free and fair elections. Why bother to have an electoral contest when the losers can act like winners? What’s the penalty for being, like the Democrats have been, obstructionists?

The penalty is that you lose elections. And looking at Congressional and Senatorial elections, the Democrats were slaughtered. Especially in the Senate where Republicans picked up 4 seats, the Democrats entire electoral strategy failed miserably. But wait! Here come the Republican RINO’s to the rescue. It’s enough to turn one’s stomach.

I believed at the time that the compromise was a betrayal of the electoral process. I still believe it.

That being said, I have to agree with those who say the Captain went too far this morning. At the same time, his critics – including the Commissar - are acting like the Republicans are the obstructionists:

The compromise, you see, was not about approving five judges, moving on, and getting the people’s business done, it was about “protecting the filibuster” and facilitating lynch mobs.

In his sarcasm, the Commissar doesn’t realize that he’s half right. The Compromise was about protecting the filibuster – protecting it in language so broad and hazy that the Democrats will not only have a right to filibuster just about any Supreme Court nominee that comes down the pike (any nominee that would shift the balance of the court, that is) but there’s nothing in that agreement that restrains Democrats from blocking any future judicial nominee except their word that they’ll do so only in “extraordinary cicrumstances.”

I guess what it comes down to is ideology. Does a President have the right to name judges who relfect his basic ideology? The fact that I’m even asking that question is unbelievable. Of course he does! Evidently, conservative judges are unpalatable to the Democrats. If so, let them fight for getting judges confirmed who relfect their ideology the way its been done for 217 years – at the ballot box, not in the cloakroom of the Senate.

The Captain’s rhetoric comparing the filibuster over civil rights and anti-lynching legislation to filibustering judicial nominees was rhetorical overkill. But his critics need to take a look at what’s being done here in the name of “compromise.” The Republican Senators who eagerly crowded around the microphone at that press conference echoing their Democratic colleagues that “the Republic was saved” were being used. This is just the preliminary bout, a meaningless scrap between unranked fighters. The Main Event takes place later this summer when, by many reports, Justice Rehnquist will retire.

The Democrats will not, cannot allow, an anti-abortion judge to be confirmed. And since there will be two judicial nominations to deal with – one to replace the Chief Justice and one to fill the vacancy – they will filibuster. They will fight it tooth and nail. Too many of their supporters see that one issue as of paramount importance. To believe otherwise – to think that some magic bullet “compromise” will somehow prevent this is delusional.

Oh, the Democrats will couch their opposition in other terms. “Extremist,” “out of the mainstream,” and “activist” have been their favorites so far. But the sticking point will be abortion. The reason is simple; if the President gets one ant-abortion judge confirmed the balance of power on the court will shift and the anti-abortion judges will be in the ascendancy. While I would personally oppose the repeal of Roe V Wade the President was reelected by the majority of citizens knowing full well his opposition to a woman’s right to choose. The idea that he would pick judges that didn’t reflect that position would be a betrayal of the majority of people who voted for him.

The “compromise” will be history before then. But the consequences for the inept Republican leadership that allowed it in the first place will come into focus when the possibility arises that the Supreme Court will have at least one vacancy until after the next election in 2008.

UPDATE

The Captain has drawn back a bit from the precipice:

Perhaps I should refrain from blogging when I get pissed off … but if you read this carefully, you will not see me calling the Gang of 14 lynchers or racists. Their self-aggrandizing rhetoric about saving the Republic, especially coming from the only member of the Senate to have filibustered the Civil Rights Act and vote against both black Supreme Court justices, is something I find appalling considering the history of how the Senate has used the filibuster in the past. And given that history, its use in keeping Brown off the appellate bench—given her childhood and its relation to the lynching that the filibuster allowed to continue—is particularly repellent. And I’m still waiting for an example of some greater good accomplished by the filibuster that makes up for all of its victims.

On the other hand, at least the compromise resolved that particular injustice, which may be the only positive aspect of it from either a Constitutional or historical point of view. I’m mindful of Beth’s admonitions, but as the Post article shows, you can’t talk about the filibuster in honest terms without pointing out its application in keeping the federal government from interceding on behalf of black Americans for decades. Next time, I’ll try to temper my irritation before I post.

Been there…done that.

And Beth…Well, Beth once again reminds us why we listen when she writes:

You know, there’s a reason why the DU and Kos and other such moonbat sites exist; it’s because of the hysterical rhetoric spewed by those ON MY SIDE. (You’re not off the hook either, moonbats–your s**t is every bit as ridiculous, and happens ALL the time.) Quit acting like a bunch of f**king amateurs. This is NO WAY TO WIN AN ARGUMENT. No way to ensure conservatives are elected or even respected. It’s disgusting, and I’m tired of it.

Let me head that off right now: All I’ve got to say to those people is PISS OFF, amateurs. Come on over here and call me a racist or a liberal and you’ll probably not just find your comment deleted–you might be banned as well. I don’t put up with idiots, period.