Ramesh, I would have more sympathy for Brooks’s nostalgia for the old ways of doing things if it had been timely. Instead, he posits his protest not when Democrats, in an unprecedentedly systematic way, start filibustering judicial appointees. He pines for the good old times only after Republicans propose getting rid of the filibuster — a maneuver that has a lot more pedigree than does the filibuster of nominees.

The Democrats’ position here would be much stronger if they had actually taken a nominee on regarding the substance of his/her positions. They don’t want to do that because the nominees’ positions, to the extent they are known, are actually appealing to most Americans, and in any event respectful of the law. So, instead, the Dems’ position has been the vaporous “They’re too extreme and, besides, we can stop them on Parliamentary rules.” That’s not a competitive debate, it’s gamesmanship, and it calls for getting rid of the Parliamentary rules so the real debate can take place.

If the Dems have real reasons why these people shouldn’t be confirmed, no one is saying they shouldn’t be able to put ‘em forward. But what is going on here is just extortion, and no one should give in to that, even if David Brooks has tired of it.

The GOP has the decisive majority and it has the decided edge on substance in the debate. That’s what’s ordinarily what’s known as a rout. If the New England Patriots play PS 127, the final score should be 300-0, and it should look like every bit the rout that it is. What Reid is saying here is that fairness, on some calculation, calls on us to make it look like a closer game than it really is because, dammit, the game is really important to PS 127. I don’t think so.

When I was a prosecutor, defense lawyers were always looking to cut a favorable deal — a deal that was better than the circumstances objectively called for. I didn’t blame them for trying — that was their job. But if the evidence was overwhelming, such that it was abundantly clear that the defendant should lose on the merits, the prosecutor was not expected to give away the store to try to appear “fair” and “reasonable.”

He was not supposed to be representing himself and his future prospects. He was supposed to be representing the public and promoting its welfare. Thus, he was expected to make the defendant say “uncle” to a severe conviction and sentence. If the defendant was unwilling, the prosecutor was expected to say “Let’s get it on — pick a jury!” The defendant would then get creamed at the trial and get slammed at sentencing. And no one boo-hooed about the supposed unfairness of it all. What happened was what was supposed to happen.

Frist ought to tell Reid, “Let’s get it on.” If Reid is in a dealing mood, the deal will get better with his feet to the fire. If it doesn’t, who cares? He should lose 300-0.