Why I Don’t Read Dahlia Lithwick
Dahlia Lithwick writes:
Over his initial objections, he further pledged to support the so-called “nuclear option” to put an end to filibusters: “If a rule change is necessary to avoid filibusters, there are relevant recent precedents to secure rules changes with 51 votes,” he said.
Just to clarify: In order to claim the chairmanship of the Judiciary Committee, Arlen Specter was forced to abandon future personal or independent judgment—the very judgment the people of Pennsylvania elected him to exercise. He has pledged—in advance of knowing who they are — to endorse the president’s judicial nominees and to vote for a highly controversial GOP rule change to end filibusters and effectively terminate dissent of any sort in the Senate.
Just to clarify this “clarification,” this legal eagle equates voting on a candidate with “effectively terminating dissent.” I’ll bet she’s still sore over having had her own dissent “effectively terminated” on Nov. 2.
‘Hat tip: Patterico who, for some apparent reason, does read Dahlia Lithwick.
UPDATE: No, he doesn’t. Apparently, Howard Bashman does, which puts my Lithwick number at the still disturbingly low value of 2.
November 19th, 2004 at 11:08 pm
I don’t read Dahlia Lithwick per se. I just read Howard Bashman. He reads Dahlia Lithwick. I saw it as another chance to allude to the “pecker in the pocket” post, nothing more.