THIS MOMENT:

Bush's Judges (E. J. Dionne Jr., November 1, 2002, Washington Post)

Ending the judicial impasse would require Bush and the Democrats to agree that this moment requires a thoughtful balance in the judiciary, and it could be easily achieved. The two sides could agree on balanced slates of highly qualified and respected judges representing strong and opposing points of view, or they could jointly agree on moderate candidates known for good sense and restraint.

Such an approach would, for example, allow widely admired conservative Bush nominees such as Michael McConnell, a professor at the University of Utah College of Law, to go forward in tandem with comparably qualified liberals. Many moderates and liberals would like to support conservatives of McConnell's caliber. But they will be reluctant to do so if that means acquiescing in a broader effort to tilt the federal judiciary in one direction.

If the Democrats hold the Senate on Tuesday, the president may well keep trying to shove as many conservatives onto the courts as he can, with predictably rancorous results. Or he could acknowledge the reality that divided government accurately reflects a nation closely split in its politics -- and perhaps especially so in its attitudes toward the judiciary. Divided government can produce gridlock. It can also produce compromise and balance. Where the courts are concerned, compromise and balance are exactly what's required.

Why is it that the precise moment's that require radical alterations to our traditional scheme of governance always occur at a time when they will benefit only the Left? Why wasn't the moment that required this the point in January 1995 when a 43% president suddenly faced a Senate dominated by the opposition? Posted by Orrin Judd at November 1, 2002 8:43 PM