The stench of politics

I love politics. Politics is thrilling, competitive and has a very strong bearing on our own lives (hint, hint: You, too, can vote this May 7 and November 5). But for all of its majesty, politics can also be divisive and underhanded. It's just part of the game. But does it have to be?\nPoliticians are so interested in catching the attention of an apathetic electorate that they will often stoop awfully low to catch our attention. Unfortunately, the easiest way to do this is often to undercut others. To that effect, did you know that President Bush is trying to push through judges with questionable civil rights positions? Yep, it's true (or so some Democrats say). It's a good thing our knights in shining armor -- members of the aforementioned party -- are able to save us from such tyrannical judges. But, "No," say the Republicans. They would have you believe the Democrats are using their power in the Senate to bypass the Constitution.\nIt's often hard to know whom to believe amidst all of the hoopla. Not only in the arena of judicial nominations, but most all political matters. Think about it: When is the last time you heard a politician say, "I was wrong," unless he is forced to say so by irrefutable evidence (like, say, a dress). Such is the case with the current Senate squabbling.\nTo understand the situation, a bit of history is necessary. First, judicial nominations being held up in the Senate is a way of life. During President Clinton's term, Republicans were not bashful about holding up his nominations for various (read: political) reasons. Now the shoe is on the other foot, and the Democrats don't seem to mind their new found power one bit. For instance, will you ever hear Democrats say, "We complained loudly when President Clinton's judicial nominees weren't allowed to see the light of day, but WE are in power now and the Republicans are going to pay." Nope. I suspect that wouldn't sound too good as a sound bite. \nBut are the Republicans acting angelic? Hardly. Senate Republicans have tried to claim the Constitution guarantees nominees a vote in the Senate. Considering that they are such avid supporters of judges who strictly interpret the Constitution, maybe it would be helpful to see what it actually says. According to Article II, Section 2, the president shall, "with the advice and consent of the Senate" appoint Supreme Court justices and other officers. Strictly interpreted, does it say that judges have a right to be voted on? What's more, I wonder how much "advice" President Bush seeks from Senate Democrats before making his nominations.\n Senate Republicans are complaining about a system they perpetuated while in power. Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott has complained that the Democrats are engaging in retribution for Republican hold ups of Clinton nominees, but he wasn't complaining too loudly about the power to hold up nominees when he was majority leader.\n If you've found the previous few paragraphs a little confusing and even more troubling, you're not alone. One is often left wondering whom to believe. It is certain there are members of both parties who are genuinely interested in working for the common good (including many on the Judiciary Committee). But, sadly, all the negativity in politics often obscures legitimate concerns lawmakers have. Maybe politics is always destined to be negative. We can hope that a stroke of maturity will infiltrate much of American politics. At least we can hope.