When it comes to judicial nominations, some Democrats are ready to throw the Constitution out the window. Enter Senator Barbara "gun in her purse" Boxer (D-CA), the lone Senator who earlier this year tried to invalidate the vote of every citizen in Ohio. She thinks that the standard of 51 votes is too easy to achieve.

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.

Whether you think the vote threshhold should be 51, or 61, or 101 is a matter of opinion, and Ms. Boxer is certainly entitled to hers. But the actual requirement is 51 votes, and if Ms. Boxer wants to change that I suggest she push for a Constitutional Amendment to change it. Until then, she's violating the very document that she has sworn an oath to uphold.

I've long believed that Senators should be elected by the state legislatures, the way it was done when this nation was founded. But there is that inconvenience of the U.S. Constitution. Using Barbara Boxer's premise that the Constitution doesn't matter, politicians in Sacramento could simply boot her out of office and choose their own representative to replace her.