Lynchings and the US Senate: Follow-up

Three items about the Senate's less-than-wholly-enthusiastic apology for a century of tolerating lynching:

First, although Senate Majority Leader Frist eventually signed on as co-sponsor, he also appears to have done everything he could to keep the vote from happening, and--when that didn't work--to schedule it late at night and by a voice-vote to provide maximum political cover for the objectively pro-lynching Senators in his party. So when you read the list of that tribe of Senators who didn't support the measure, remember that Frist is an honorary member of the clan.

Second, I confess I find it puzzling that Orrin Hatch didn't jump to give his support to this measure, since he was in charge of shepherding the nomination of only-qualified-by-Bush-family-standards Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas through the Senate confirmation process in 1991. Thomas, you recall, was the one who claimed that Senate opposition to his nomination was nothing more than a "high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves."

Perhaps the rectitudinous Hatch is only offended by metaphorical lynchings (Thomas, after all, went on to a lifetime appointment and comfortably resides in a gated community) rather than the genuine article.

Finally, Senators George Voinovich (R-OH) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have added their names as co-sponsors to the measure (after-the-fact co-sponsoring is allowable under Senate rules).