Do we want a Republican president to nominate originalists and a Republican Senate to confirm them? This is the least controversial of the proposals for addressing judicial activism. Indeed, with a few exceptions, it is what every Republican president since Dwight Eisenhowe has attempted (with very limited success). However, if this is deemed controverisal and negotiable, then there’s little hope for ever limiting judicial activism.

There can be no deal of the kind Harry Reid offered, and David Brooks endorses. Every originalist nominated to a high court will be characterized as radical because they won’t endorse an approach to adjudicating that enhances the leftwing agenda. The Reid deal, such as it is, offers nothing beyond the confirmation of a couple of circuit candidates. And it institutionalizes an extraordinary role in the judicial selection process, should a president have any hope of appointing numerous candidates to the appellate and Supreme courts. The result — Republican presidents will appoint more nominees like Sandra Day O’Connor and John Paul Stevens.

The hoops through which so many bright thinkers are willing to jump to accommodate the Senate Democrats’ brazen power grab through obstructionism is mind-boggling. And why? For fear of changing a Senate rule?