Rich Lowry takes a very pragmatic view of the democrat's reason's for blocking the nominations of four of President Bush's Judicial nominees. First he show's the ugly side:
White guys who are as or more conservative than Owen have been confirmed as appellate judges, while her nomination has languished for four years. So it goes in the judicial wars. A woman. A black. A Catholic. A Hispanic. It sounds like the beginning of a bad ethnic joke, but it's the lineup of the Democrats' top filibuster victims.
If the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission were reviewing the Democrats' filibuster choices, it would have grounds for a disparate-impact lawsuit.
Then he points out the bottom line political reality that has the democrats running scared.
Democrats fear that a non-Protestant, nonwhite non-male might be easier for President Bush to elevate to the Supreme Court from a federal appeals court, so they want to keep nominees with the "wrong" demographics from getting on an appeals court in the first place.
In the filibuster fight, Democrats invoke minority rights. What they are attempting to vindicate is the right of the Senate minority to block minorities.
So they hounded latino nominee Miguel Estrada until he withdrew his name.
They are going down the "high tech lynching" trail with Janice Rogers Brown because "she is black, was raised by sharecroppers in segregationist Alabama, and worked her way through law school as a single mother after her first husband died."
The last thing the democrats want is a "attractive U.S. Supreme Court nominee" nominated by a Republican who isn't of the oppressor class (i.e. Protestant White Male, preferably old).