NOW WHO'S "CHANGING THE CONSTITUTION"?

Tom Delay wants to "involve the House in more federal court nominations." Read the press release on the House Working Group On Judicial Accountability, here. (See also the wire story here).

Given the attacks by Republicans on any Senate Democratic attempt to create structures for bipartisan vetting of judicial candidates as "unconstitutional," I can't see how House Republicans can escape the same charge -- if the apparently textual theories of constitutional meaning remain consistent when applied to partisans in the Republicans' own party. Everything will come down to what precise proposals are developed, and I have no inside information on what this Working Group is supposed to accomplish. Right now it stands as a threat to Senate Democrats that the partisan pressure is going to pick up.

Given that the text of the Constitution clearly leaves no role for the House in the judicial nominations process, I'm not sure how Republicans will avoid the charge of constitutional hypocrisy here. I'm not particularly concerned about additional efforts by House members to get in on the act (as a constitutional matter, that is; as a political matter, it's clear that the House Republicans are trying to get involved with what they see as a winning issue). But I have never staked anything on a strong textual view of the constitutional requirements in the area of judicial nominations, unlike all those Senate Republicans who have argued that Democratic opposition in the form of a filibuster -- and Democratic reform proposals -- are unconstitutional.