Thanks for another stimulating post, Andy. A few things: First, you suggest, very reasonably, that the fact that the Democrats are gearing up to filibuster a Bush Supreme Court pick means that they don’t think they’ll pay a price for it. You might be right about that. But it’s possible they are being driven by their left-wing base to behave irrationally–that is to say, that the party is currently configured in a way that makes it hard to pursue its actual interests. I think that there is some plausibility to this view in the age of chairman Howard Dean. They also pay no price if the mere threat of filibusters can get the Specters of the Republican party to make concessions; so there’s no great reason for them to moderate now.

Second, I seem to have somehow created the impression that I am, or that I think Senate Republicans should be, more interested in increasing the number of Senate Republicans than in getting conservative judges confirmed. I’m with you, Andy, on the question of priorities. My argument has always been that we are likely to see Democratic filibusters at the Supreme Court level fail and that this failure will leave us better off on judicial issues than a rules change. You may disagree with that view–you have rather expertly gone about trying to pick it apart–but let’s not forget the common ground we share.

But, what the heck, let me throw out a possibly provocative disagreement on a side-issue. You suggest that “character” and “competence” should be the chief issues that concern senators as they decide how to vote on judicial confirmation and that “ideology” is not “a proper basis for voting against a nominee.” Now if what you mean by that is that it is improper to reject a nominee because he opposes (or supports) abortion or thinks the New Deal was socialistic, then I certainly agree. But if “ideology” refers here to views of the judicial function, then I think it is absolutely proper for senators to consider whether a nominee’s view of it exceeds the courts’ constitutional powers.