By now you’ve heard the story about how the Senate Democrats are holding up the “organizing resolution” that determines funding for the new Senate. Without this bill deciding the Senate budgets, the Republicans cannot take over the Senate committees that they rightly won in the last election. Bills for defense and national security collect dust while the Democrats pout like babies and demand equal funding (the majority party traditionally receives two-thirds of the Senate budget). As this CBS report notes: “It's as if the Republicans bought a house, but the old family won't move out”.

What’s their game? Well, this report from “The Hill” reveals the machinations of the worst saboteurs in the Senate: the Judiciary Committee Democrats. After obstructing judicial nominees for two years, the Schumer crew simply cannot stop trying to gum up the works, the public be damned:

Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats urged their leadership yesterday to use the organizing resolution as leverage to give them more clout over nominations from the White House.
The resolution was held up by a dispute over funding, which has prevented Republicans from taking control of committees and frustrated new Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.).

and

The letter to [Senate Minority Leader] Daschle [from the Judiciary Democrats] stated in part:
“We would urge that the following be included in any agreement on an organizing resolution: that hearings not be scheduled until the [American Bar Association (ABA)] has submitted its peer review and the committee has had three weeks to review the nomination; that each hearing contain only one controversial nominee; that each hearing include only one circuit court nominee; that hearings not be held more frequently than every three or four weeks.”

This is rich….OK, deep breath, let’s take this one by one:
1.) The ABA peer review ranks judicial nominees, with a top rating of “Well Qualified.” Both Charles Pickering and Priscilla Owen received a “Well Qualified” – the Democrats rejected both on straight party votes.
2.) What the hey-diddle-diddle is a “controversial” nominee? Who determines what is “controversial”? Easy answer: if you, say, think the Second Amendment allows you to own a gun, you’re “controversial”. Pro-choice: mainstream. Pro-life: controversial. Out you go, into the snow!
3.) Delaying tactic
4.) Delaying tactic

Once again, if these steps were all so critical to adequately determine if a nominee could sit on the Federal Bench, why didn’t the Democrats push for these reforms when Clinton was president, or even when they had control in the last Senate. To ask is to answer.

Several Senate Democrats, including Daschle, Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) and Dick Durbin (Ill.), have indicated they would filibuster Pickering’s nomination if it comes to the Senate floor. The Republican would need to muster at least 60 votes to break a determined Democratic talkathon.

Bring it on. The Republicans should call C-Span and make sure they cover the Democrats jabbering to deny the President’s nominee a straight up-or-down vote. They should stack up the bills that aren’t being passed because of the Daschle monkey-wrenchers. The Democrats are cutting their own throats and, as Napoleon might say: “Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.”