California’s Barbara Boxer is widely regarded as the least intellectually gifted member of the Senate. She showed why today, as she let the cat out of the bag: what the Democrats really think about judicial appointments, via InstaPundit and Duane Patterson, Hugh Hewitt’s producer/sidekick, RadioBlogger. Ms. Boxer spills the beans:
Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. 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.
So that’s what they think: no federal judge should be confirmed with fewer than 60 votes. Of course, any number of judges have been confirmed with somewhere between 51 and 60 votes. Presumably Ms. Boxer doesn’t suggest that they should all be impeached. And one suspects that next time we have a Democratic President–which, like earthquake, drought, hurricane, etc., is a disaster, but one certain to happen eventually–Ms. Boxer’s tune, and that of all other Democratic Senators, will change 180 degrees.
It would be possible, of course, to adopt a requirement that all federal judges be confirmed by a super-majority of 60 or more. It’s just that, you know, the Constitution doesn’t happen to say that. But since when have the Democrats cared what the Constitution actually says?