Matt Margolis

If you haven’t already heard, Duane at Radioblogger has a transcript of the Democrats’ MoveOn.org rally, where Senator Barbara Boxer proposed requiring a super-majority to confirm all judicial nominees

So we’re saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn’t too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don’t you think so? It’s the only check and balance on these people. They’re in for life. They don’t stand for election like we do, which is scary.

Click here for the audio of Boxer’s comments.

Duane notes that this proves that “it is the Democrats who indeed are changing the Constitutional requirement, because Democrats like Barbara Boxer don’t think the current political makeup is fair.”

There’s more to this story then just the fact that the Democrats support an unconstitutional super-majority for judicial nominees to be confirmed…

Right now there are 55 Republicans in the Senate, and 45 Democrats. A super-majority is 60 votes. In order for the Democrats to obtain an unbreakable super-majority, they’d have to gain 15 seats in the Senate, and the Republicans would have to lose 15 seats. In order for Democrats to become the majority party in the Senate again, they’d have to gain 6 seats.

Why is Boxer proposing a rule change that would remain in place regardless of who is President, and independent of which party holds the simple majority?

It seems to me that Barbara Boxer believes that the Democrats are not going to regain the majority in the Senate in the near future, and that they won’t see a fellow Democrat in the White House either…

Why else would she even entertain the idea of requiring a super-majority for judicial nominees?

If the rules changed tomorrow, they’d effect not only Bush’s constitutional duty to nominate judges, but also his successor, and if his successor was a Democrat, the chances are you won’t see any nominees by that president getting a super-majority from a Senate which currently has 15 more Republicans than Democrats. So they would lose.

If the rules changed tomorrow, and Democrats managed to reclaim the majority in the Senate in 2006 or 2008, their majority is meaningless with regard to judicial nominees, regardless if a Republican or a Democrat wins the White House in 2008.

Boxer’s proposal to change the rules to require a super-majority for confirming judicial nominees, only helps them while they are in the minority of the Senate with a Republican president. Any other possible scenario in the near future would likely create a gridlock of judicial appointments.

The only logicial conclusion is that Boxer doesn’t expect the make up of our government to change. A Republican will continue to occupy the White House and the Democrats will continue to be the minority party in Congress.