Boxer: I'm a Big Fat Hypocrite

From Best of the Web

The far-left outfit MoveOn.org held a rally the other day in support of Democratic obstructionism, and among the senators who spoke was Angry Left heartthrob Barbara Boxer. Radioblogger.com has audio and a transcript of her defense of judicial filibusters, which is quite astonishing:

"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 superimportant 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."

Now, maybe it's a good idea to require 60 votes to confirm a judge, though we don't seem to recall Boxer or any other Democrat suggesting it in 1993-94, when it would have allowed minority Republicans to block Clinton appointees. But the Constitution requires only a majority vote. If Boxer thinks a supermajority would be better, she should propose a constitutional amendment--one that would impose the rule for all time, not just when it's expedient for the Democrats.