Super-Majority for Confirmation of Federal Judges?

Radio Blogger has an outstanding piece on California's Junior SenatorBarbara Boxer and the Senate Democrats true intention regarding the President's judicial appointments:

Now the truth comes out.

The dumbest member of the United States Senate, California's very own Barbara Boxer, took to the podium next, and did something remarkable. She forgot to keep up the lie. She told the truth about the strategy of the Democrats. She let what their view of the Constitution truly is. If Rose Woods, Richard Nixon's legendary secretary, worked at either MoveOn or C-span, the following part of the tape would be missing:

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

No kidding. She said it. Here's the audio so you don't have to look for it in an hour and a half audio file.

Boxer audio

In one small paragraph, if this passage gets picked up around the 'sphere and on radio, the Democrats just lost their argument. The truth of the matter is it is the Democrats who indeed are changing the Constitutional requirement, because Democrats like Barbara Boxer don't think the current political makeup is fair. Not only should there be a supermajority, which is clearly unconstitutional, but appointed judges should stand for elections. I wonder if that weathered, pocket-sized edition of the Constitution did backflips in Robert Byrd's shirt pocket when she said that.

Game over. Dems lose. Spread the truth far and wide, bloggers.

Just Nuke them Senate Republicans and start confirming some conservative judges like the people voted you to do!!

Update #1

Captain Ed over at Captain's Quarters has his take on Senator Boxer:

Duane at Radioblogger has the audio clip and transcript from Barbara Boxer's appearance at the MoveOn rally in support of Senate Democrats and their unprecedented filibusters of judicial nominees. After such luminaries as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd railed on interminably about the evils of majority rule (in America!) and the need to preserve the Constitution, they committed the fatal blunder of allowing Boxer to speak:

Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance on these people. They're in for life. They don't stand for election like we do, which is scary.

This flies in the face of Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution, which states:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

In other words, the Democrats want to pervert the Constitution to require a supermajority to confirm Presidential appointees, which the framers specifically did not require. As anyone with eyes can see, it's not as if the concept of supermajorities didn't occur to the founding fathers, as they specifically require it for ratification of treaties. The entire Constitution contains only four requirements for supermajorities: treaties, impeachment, veto overrides, and amendments. Only those types of actions, the framers foresaw, would change the nature of the government itself.
It now becomes clear that it's the Democrats who want to change the nature of the balance of power by adding a supermajority requirement for Presidential appointments, and that the filibuster is their back-door strategy to do so. The blather about protecting debate is ridiculous. Limiting the debate does not equate to eliminating it, and besides, the filibuster does not exist as a Constitutional construct. Debate, in fact, only gets a mention in Section 6, Clause 2 of Article 1, and only to ensure that Congressmen cannot get arrested while Congress is in session.
Boxer screwed up and blew their cover.