Guess who else hates the nuclear option?

If I were to tell you that a certain high-profile political figure described the nuclear option as “a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government,” you’d probably assume it was some angry Democrat, right?

But it wasn’t a Dem. It was Ken Starr. Yes, that Ken Starr.

On the CBS Evening News on Monday, Gloria Borger talked with Starr about his perspective on the judicial nomination fight. He didn’t sound fond of the tactics being used by his fellow Republicans.

Starr: This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.

Borger: Starr, who investigated the Monica Lewinsky case against President Clinton, tells CBS News that the Republican plan to end the filibuster may be unwise.

Starr: It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful senators may come to regret.

I don’t know just how much sway Starr might have with today’s far-right lawmakers, but it’s encouraging nevertheless to hear the former Grand Inquisitor take such a reasoned and sensible position.

After all, when Ken Starr says Republicans are going too far, you know they’re going too far.

Update: There’s a follow-up to this post, including a response to questions about the accuracy of the CBS report, here.

In keeping with it’s long-standing policy of dishonest reporting, it seems that CBS has once again deliberately misreported the news. No shocker there. Evidently, even after the shame of the Dan Rather debacle, CBS has still learned nothing about the importance of objectivity and/or truthfulness in reporting.

According to Starr, the excerpts of the interview that he did with Borger were taken completely out of context, for the sole purpose of making it appear that Mr. Starr was saying something he had not.

Ramesh Ponnuru, of National Review online, contacted Mr. Starr to ask him about this issue, and Starr sent him a copy of an e-mail he had sent to a third party explaining the whole thing. Here is what Mr. Ponnuru wrote about it….

“CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a “radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.”

This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.

He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:

“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.”

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_05_08_corner-archive.asp

A word of advice. When using CBS as a source, it would be wise to use a bit of caution before accepting their story as fact. They are not without an agenda.