I do not recall the Globe making a similar pitch for Bush nominees like Miguel Estrada and Charles Pickering, to name just two. These highly qualified judges were victims of the Democrats game of filibustering judicial nominees. We all knew that the next Democrat president would face similar treatment, and the selective outrage of the Globe here is rich. But the practice should end-give all nominees a vote.

One can hear the ghost of Teddy Kennedy chuckling over any concept of fairness in the judicial selection process.

And you base the "fact" that Halligan is a radical on what information? Seems like no one else can find it but you can. Links and citations please.

When was fairness ever a concern? The Republicans are obstructing every appointment, judical or otherwise that Obama has tried to make. During Bush's presidency the Democrats did the same thing, though not to the same extent. During Clinton's presidency the Republicans did the same thing, though not to the extent that they are doing now, and not the the extent that the Democrats did to GWB. Bork may have been the first person 'Borked' in recent memory, but both sides have a long history of obstructing each other. In 1804 Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Samuel Chase was impeached purely for political reasons. He was a staunch Federalist and Jefferson's Democrat-Republicans felt he was biased against them. He was found not guilty, in part because dislike of one's politics was recognized as failing the sniff test for legitimacy, and in part because even back then it was well-known that what goes around comes around. It's nothing new, although the level of incivility is easily approaching that seen before the Civil War.

The Democrats set the precedent for this, and must forced to deal with it used against them. I will never forget the Globe columnist Thomas Oliphant, who never saw a Republican he could not smear. His justification of the Democrats filibuster on Charles Pickering was that he "lacked the temperament". Of course, if it were true, one could vote no. Filibustering is obstructionism, when it comes to judicial nominees. The chickens have come home to roost for the Democrats. They were the prime movers of this practice.

Richmond have you forgotten the blocks put on Clinton's judicial nominees? If you want to claim the Democrats set the precedent you need to go back further than Clinton's Presidency. rjcronin at least makes an accurate allusion to Ted Kennedy's role in leading the opposition to Robert Bork, but that was only one nominee, not Reagan's entire slate of intended appointments. If you want to look at the precedent for filibustering a judicial nomination you might do well to remember opposition to Abe Fortas, undertaken by an alliance of Republicans and southern Democrats (Dixiecrats, who have now pretty much taken over the Republican Party).

JLErwin3- Your comments point to the need for a return to some semblance of balance. Well done.

Thank you RJC. I don't mind partisanship, often it is highly entertaining, but a little self-awareness and full disclosure is warranted. I rather enjoyed Bob Doles candor on such matters, even when I disagreed strongly.