Wampum

Mark Schmitt states my position quite well:

In theory, I don't have a problem with the "extraordinary circumstances" language. Because a filibuster will always involve extraordinary circumstances. It is not, as I never get tired of pointing out, a supermajority. And Democrats know full well that they lost the election, they can't just block every nominee until Bush agrees to appoint Cass Sunstein or Ron Dworkin to the Supreme Court. And they can't control all their votes even if they wanted to. So "extraordinary circumstances," in and of itself is just a matter of stating the obvious.

But if "extraordinary circumstances" is coupled in a deal with an agreement to let either Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown's nominations go through, then it is totally unacceptable. That's because in that combination, Brown or Owen would come to define the line of "extraordinary circumstances." That is, assume Brown goes through -- after that, anyone with views less extreme than Brown would implicitly be considered not extraordinary. Bush could name Brown herself to the Court and Democrats would be paralyzed. And the problem with that is simply that there are no possible nominees to the Supreme Court whose views are more radical than Justice Brown.

I can conceive of no set of circumstances in which I would favor a lifetime appointment to the Federal bench for Janice Rogers Brown. As I have noted before, Justice Brown does not believe that the Bill of Rights is incorporated by the 14th Amendment to apply to state and local governments. That, for me, is a litmus test. It should be for you as well.