Hugh Hewitt: Lead the Way

The Weekly Standard ^ | April 14, 2005 | Hugh Hewitt

[RWR8189]

Senate Republicans may not understand the true stakes in the coming judicial showdown.

IN RECENT DAYS I interviewed Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, and Ralph Neas, executive director of People for the American Way. Together these two are the architects of the policy of unyielding obstruction by Democrats of George Bush's judicial nominees. It is difficult to overstate their influence on the Democratic caucus: They are widely considered to be the hands steering Democratic policy on judges.

Both blew the usual rhetorical smoke about how well President Bush is doing with his judicial nominations--Bush has by far the lowest approval rate to the appeals court for modern times for a president three months into his second term. And both used the same talking points on all the blocked nominees, including the risible assertion that Democrats had no idea Bill Pryor was a Roman Catholic until Senator Hatch asked him. The transcripts provide a summary of the threadbare case against the blockaded judges, and far from a persuasive one.

But they also provide much more: A clear warning to the GOP that the stakes in the coming showdown over the filibuster include the Supreme Court. Here's Nan Aron:

 

Hewitt: Do you expect Democrats to filibuster Supreme Court nominees as well, Nan Aron?

 

Aron: You know, that's a fairly good question because if President Bush did what President Clinton did and share names with prospective candidates to get the Democrats's consent as Clinton did, if Bush did that, his nominees would sail through.

Hewitt: A lot of names are out there. For example, Fourth Circuit Court Judge Mike Luttig. Would you oppose, and urge a filibuster of Mike Luttig?

Aron: Absolutely, but you see, if this president were to sit down with the Democrats, I assume, I don't know for sure, but I assume that they would say "Mr. President, this guy shouldn't be elevated. His views are just too outside the constitutional mainstream for us." If he were to do that and come up with someone else that met the requirements of the Democrats, the person would sail through.

Hewitt: Would you oppose Judge Mike McConnell if he were nominated and urge a filibuster?

Aron: Yes, we would.

Hewitt: Do you oppose, and urge a filibuster for John Roberts?

Aron: Yes, we would.

Hewitt: In essence, people--three judges I've just named. Three, if you go down a long list of judges who have already confirmed by the United States Senate. If Alliance for Justice--Ralph said the same thing by the way last week that he'd have opposed the same three judges. If the radicals are in charge of the Democrats, don't we need to break this down because, in essence, unless they nominate someone you like, you'll urge a filibuster and overturn majority rule?

Aron: You know, you just named three individuals but can't be the only three people who come to mind. There are dozens and dozens of others.

Hewitt: Miguel Estrada? He comes to mind.

 

 

Aron: Miguel Estrada pulled out so he's not even being . . .

 

Hewitt: No--if he was nominated to the Supreme Court, would you oppose and urge a filibuster.

Aron: Of course we would! And so would I assume the vast majority of Americans. I think what you have to do is look at Miguel Estrada's record--his hearing record before the Senate Judicial Committee. He refused to answer questions. Well, judgeships are too important. Judges have too much influence over our lives. Simply to rubber stamp somebody because the president says that he wants this guy on the Supreme Court . . .

 

And here's Ralph Neas:

 

Hewitt: I want to close with just a couple of questions about the next Supreme Court vacancy. Will you oppose Mike McConnell if he is the nominee?

 

Neas: Absolutely. Mike was a colleague of mine at the University of Chicago Law School. Lovely individual, but truly extreme on a wide range of issues.

Hewitt: Will you oppose Michael Luddig

Neas: Absolutely. Even farther right than Michael McConnell.

Hewitt: Will you oppose John Roberts if he is the nominee?

Neas: Michael Roberts . . . ?

Hewitt: John Roberts.

Neas: [We're] studying his record and his record is one that we have a number of people taking a very close look at. My gut is that John Roberts shares the judicial philosophy of Michael McConnell, Michael Luddig, Anthony Scalia and Clarence Thomas, but we're not done with our study.

 

Thus the leaders of the left's unprecedented and extra-constitutional blockade of Bush's circuit court nominees are on record as planning to use similar tactics for any Supreme Court vacancies that arise in Bush's second term, the first of which is widely believed to be coming soon with the expected retirement of Chief Justice Rehnquist. The short list for that vacancy, and probably the next two as well, consists of Judges Luttig, McConnell, and Roberts and a couple of other names sharing this trio's esteemed reputation for legal scholarship and temperament.

But the left doesn't want any of them to ascend to the Court, even as a replacement for one of the five generally conservative judges, much less for one of the four generally liberal judges.

This honest declaration of intention from the captains of the left's blockade is as clear a signal to the Republican leadership that now is the time to break the filibuster via a ruling from the chair that the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees is out of order, and a majority vote to uphold the rule. Both Aron and Neas concede that all of the Bush nominees have majority support. Aron goes so far as to bluntly assert the right for 41 senators to block nominees, a position that will harden into practice if it is not repudiated now.

Seven Republican senators have been cited as less than reliable in the coming confrontation: Collins and Snowe of Maine, Chafee of Rhode Island, Warner of Virginia, McCain of Arizona, Hagel of Nebraska, and surprisingly, John Sununu of New Hampshire.

I say surprisingly because Sununu is a senator today because of his primary victory over sitting Republican Senator Bob Smith, who walked out on the GOP for a time and paid the price as a result. A defection on this vote would almost certainly cost Sununu a great deal of his support when his reelection bid comes around in 2008, and would certainly be a bitter pill for anyone who supported Sununu because of Smith's "unreliability."

Similarly, if Chafee defects on this issue, I expect many Republican activists will not only not support his reelection bid in November, 2006, but will actively work for and contribute to any Democrat opponent opposite him as a convenient means of registering disgust. Contributions to the National Republican Senatorial Committee will also suffer if the bid to break the filibuster fails as there isn't much point in throwing good money after bad. The leadership ambitions of Senator Collins, and the presidential hopes of Senators Hagel and McCain might evaporate in the aftermath of a failure of will in this instance, and Senator Frist's campaign would also be over before it began.

 

THE VOTE ON THE RULING ending the filibusters could wind up being the most important vote having to do with domestic politics in a generation. The GOP's continued majority hangs in the balance. But do Republican senators and strategists understand its importance?

There seems to be a great temptation among the elected to confuse what they wish to be the case with the actual facts on the ground outside of Washington. Outside of the war on terrorism, there are few issues that the base of the Republican party deem more significant than the selection and confirmation of judges. It is far more important than tax cutting, far more important than energy policy, far more important than curbing trial lawyers--because the courts ultimately play decisive roles in all of these areas, and more.

The postponements of the confrontation are already having a terrible effect on the Republican base. It is time for Senate Republicans to lead, or to stop pretending to.

 

Hugh Hewitt is the host of a nationally syndicated radio show, and author most recently of Blog: Understanding the Information Reformation That is Changing Your World. His daily blog can be found at HughHewitt.com.

[ducks1944]

I GOT A LETTER FROM REPUBLICAN PARTY ASKING FOR MONEY. I WROTE ACCROSS IT
NO MORE MONEY TILL YOU STAND UP FOR TOME DELAY AND JUDGES PRESIDENT BUSH HAS PUT UP FOR APPOINTMENT. SO MAYBE THEY WILL GET THE MESSAGE?????

[pwatson]

"Aron: Absolutely, but you see, if this president were to sit down with the Democrats, I assume, I don't know for sure, but I assume that they would say "Mr. President, this guy shouldn't be elevated. His views are just too outside the constitutional mainstream for us." If he were to do that and come up with someone else that met the requirements of the Democrats, the person would sail through."

Yep sure, sitting down with Democrats is like sitting down with Terrorist, you get noting but back stabbing. Democrats sitting down with our Rhinos during the Clinton years easily talked them into any pinko commie the Democrats wanted to put up. Rhinos care more about getting the right invitations to country club party's than any conservative values one can think of.

[Choose Ye This Day]

Here's the whole infuriating Nan aron interview:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1383243/posts

[Choose Ye This Day]

And here's the equally frustrating interview with Rick Santorum today, saying that we may not see the showdown for perhaps two more months:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1384066/posts

[Choose Ye This Day]

Hugh brought up name after name of mainstream judges, and asked this nutcase Dem advisor if the Dems should oppose and filibuster each one. 12 out of 12, she said they would oppose. If the judge is not a socialist abortionista, the Dems are not going to let the vote happen.

William Pryor: OPPOSE.

William Haynes: OPPOSE.

Mike Luttig: OPPOSE.

Mike McConnell: OPPOSE.

John Roberts: OPPOSE.

Miguel Estrada: OPPOSE.

Claude Allen: OPPOSE.

Janice Rodgers Brown: OPPOSE.

Priscilla Owens: OPPOSE.

William Meyers: OPPOSE.

Terrence Boyle: OPPOSE.

Bret Cavanaugh: OPPOSE.

[Rodentking]

I do not know about you. I am getting a call or two a week lately from the Republican Party looking for donations. What to say?

“Tell President Bush to repent and apologize for what he left undone for Terri Schiavo and letting Judge Greer kill her; tell Bill Frist I expect judges who can read the Constitution and I don’t give a damn what Boss Reid thinks. When you get those two done, call me back. Make sure you explain to your supervisor why you are not getting any donations and have a nice day.” Click.

Fight’s on, Fight’s on!

[Rodentking]

What they really mean is if a person can and will ready based on the customary and usual interpretation of words at the public high school level and then has the guts to say they will uphold the Constitution of the United States, not make laws but interpret them; that person is clearly not fit for judical duty.

Seems fair to me.

[ALOHA RONNIE]

.

From the very start...


HUGH HEWITT was a big supporter of...


911 Remembered: RICK RESCORLA was a Soldier

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/978534/posts

.

[goldstategop]

In short: if Republicans don't vote for the constitutional option, they will get minority status in the Senate and we will see a Democratic President in 2008. Its time for them to show up or kiss their future good-bye. The conservative base is sick and tired of phonies too afraid to do what's right for the country.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Carry_Okie]

Here is the key political point:

The purpose of filibuster is to allow for debate.
A debate would be healthy for the country and I am confident the Democrats would lose, and so (apparently) are they.
The Democrats have therefore chosen NOT to use that time for debate.
It is therefore purely a procedural obstruction and not a filibuster at all.

The President of the Senate would thus be within his rights to so rule.