Rush Limbaugh reports just now that Ken Starr did NOT, as reported widely yesterday, denounce the so-called "nuclear option." The comment he made in an interview with Gloria Bolger was about the practice of holding a judge's judicial philosophy against him. CBS purposely took his sound-bite out of context and applied it to the filibustering of judges. Was Dan Rather behind that report, or his former producer, whaz-er-name? Disturbance in the Force now settled.
UPDATE: Here's what Ken Starr wrote to Ramesh Ponnuru (among others), posted at The Corner:
"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
