Clearly, this topic is getting a lot of blogplay the last couple of days. Megan weighs in on it today, with an interesting post that argues against using the courts in a tit-for-tat manner to get what can’t be accomplished through the legislative process. I agree with her on that larger point, but take issue with her conclusion:

Which is ultimately why the Republican lawsuit is such a dreadful idea. It’s an attempt to do the same thing they’re protesting in the Democrats: using the courts to end a political dispute. And this dispute isn’t worth that kind of precedent. Besides, there’s a strong possibility that if they hold off, the voters will resolve the dispute for them. And not to the liking of the Democrats.

Most judicial decisions, and certainly most con law cases, aim at settling a political dispute. That’s their purpose.

The voters already have solved this one: by electing a Republican majority to the Senate and a Republican president. Jim Jeffords snatched this victory with his duplicitous defection in 2001 only to see it restored in 2002. But to require 60 votes–nine more than required by the Constitution–in order to let an elected president make judicial appointments takes away the people’s vote.

FILED UNDER: Law and the Courts, US Politics
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is Professor and Department Head of Security Studies at Marine Corps University's Command and Staff College. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.