USA Today: “The Constitution is bunk”

Two-hundred years of history and tradition? Feh!

In our view, a qualified nominee within the judicial mainstream ought to be able to attract at least a handful of Democratic or independent votes, in addition to the 55 Republican votes. That is not an unreasonable standard for lifetime appointees whose rulings often establish important precedents.

Yeah, funny thing is we have this document called the Constitution that clearly enumerates the very issues that require supermajorities in Congress. Maybe some of the things in this 215-year old document are out-of-sync with modern times. Happy day: we can change the law if we like! But until that day, we’re governed by the laws as they stand now. USA Today is correct in that it would be nice to draw support from some of the politicians across the aisle; it’s quite another thing to claim that the Constitution should be amended (or simply re-interpreted) that a judicial nominee now requires a 60-vote majority. Shame on them for trying to conflate the two positions.