Original Intent

Ann Althouse, reading through the Constitutional discussion of the Founding Fathers, finds an interesting passage from the Constitution's primary architect on the Senate's "advise and consent" function:

Mr. Madison, suggested that the Judges might be appointed by the Executives with the concurrence of 1/3 at least of the 2d. branch. This would unite the advantage of responsibility in the Executive with the security afforded in the 2d. branch agst. any incautious or corrupt nomination by the Executive.

And in comments, someone finds this:

Mr. Madison moved that the Judges should be nominated by the Executive, & such nomination should become an appointment if not disagreed to within days by 2/3 of the 2d. branch.

And, of course, it must be said that this isn't strictly a filibuster, as the nominees are locked up in committee by a gentleman's agreement that proxies for actual oration from the podium. Frist is doing well in holding the line so far, as witness all the "compromises" being offered by the Democrats in recent weeks, but he should first make the Democrats actually stand and speak. Let Americans, through a sympathetic press which will highlight a lot of what the Democrats say, see for themselves.

On the other hand, the Republicans are losing the PR war. It's hard for most Americans to discern the principle being upheld here by Republican insistence. Senate committee cloture rules? The filibuster? The President getting every nominee he puts through? That last one faces the modern schoolhouse training that says no one gets everything they want; we all have to compromise. Everyone gets something. Of course that's ridiculous -- teachers and principals get everything they want in school, no? -- but childhood training is hard to derail.

Speaking of sympathetic press, I happened to catch NBC Nightly News the day that British MP George "Show Me the Money" Galloway appeared before the Senate committee investigating the Oil For Food scandal. NBC showed a long and complete quote from the forceful Galloway (though it was full of lies and disinformation that were never challenged, much less pointed out), then Brian Williams summarised the questions and statements of the committee members, without attributing them, in less time than Galloway got. No mention was made of committee majority chair Coleman's poor performance, nor of Democrat Carl Levin's pointed and successful questioning of Galloway. From what you saw, you'd think Galloway gave a truth to power smackdown to the war-mongering American Senate, rather than a rhetorical performance in service of a despicable man's personal ass-saving.

Some Republicans still don't seem to remember that the mainstream Washington press corps is not their friend.