Posted on 07/06/2005 5:36:05 AM PDT by prairiebreeze
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's retirement seems sure to lead to a brutal political battle over the confirmation of her replacement. There is no indication that George W. Bush intends to nominate someone who appeared on a recent list of nominees acceptable to Senate Democrats. This would be to cede the appointing power from the president and the Senate majority to a minority in the Senate.
Nor is there any indication that People for the American Way or the Alliance for Justice will not oppose any Bush nominee with every ounce of strength they have.
These groups exist for the purpose of defeating Republican judicial nominees, and their financial supporters -- the big money people and those sending in small amounts in response to direct mail appeals -- would be furious if they meekly accept a Bush appointee as Republican senators accepted Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg when they were nominated by Bill Clinton.
Not opposing nominees would be an act of self-destruction for these groups, and Washington lobbying groups are not in the habit of self-destruction.
As for Democratic senators, they have almost unanimously accepted direction from these groups. As independent-minded and candid a senator as Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was seen reading questions to a Bush nominee off the papers supplied by these groups. A major Democratic constituency, the feminist left, expects a fight against any Bush nominee. The Democratic senators surely will not disappoint.
This means that Democrats will filibuster any Bush nominee, while the left groups attempt to tar them with any charge they can dream up. A filibuster, of course, is unprecedented, a change in what has been accepted practice in the Senate for over 200 years (the four-day holdup of Abe Fortas' nomination as chief justice in 1968 was not a filibuster -- Fortas did not have majority support).
Senate Republicans seem prepared to change the rules to put them in line with traditional Senate practice, so that only a majority is required for confirmation. Unless the left groups can peel several Republican senators away from supporting the nominee, he or she will be confirmed.
On the day O'Connor announced her retirement, both Democrats and Republicans expressed pious hopes that a pitched battle will not be fought. But the fact that O'Connor provided the key fifth vote on many decisions over the years ensures that there will be.
The major political issue here is abortion. But, in fact, O'Connor's replacement is unlikely to make much difference on abortion. Even without O'Connor, there are five votes on the Court to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. And even if Roe v. Wade were overruled and the decision on abortion returned to the state legislatures, abortion is not going to be banned anywhere except perhaps Louisiana, Utah and Guam.
Indeed, as some liberals have pointed out, in state politics this might hurt Republicans who advocate abortion bans. O'Connor's replacement might make a difference by voting to uphold partial-birth abortion bans. But partial-birth abortions are rare in any case. And, indeed, the total number of abortions has been declining since the early 1990s. Most Americans don't want to see abortion banned. But they don't want to see it celebrated, either.
But abortion is one of those issues that divides the electorate along cultural lines into nearly equal Democratic and Republican blocs. It is of great symbolic importance to groups on both sides, and not for trivial reasons. But a brutal battle over abortion -- which is what this battle is going to be about for most voters -- is an argument over an issue that is largely moot. Other issues that exercise legal scholars -- over federalism, for example -- are totally unfamiliar to almost all voters.
The political effect? No great help for either party. Democrats' all-out opposition to the Bush administration -- on issues from judges to Social Security and the nomination of John Bolton to be ambassador to the United Nations -- has resulted, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg concludes, in a weakening in Republicans' standing but an even greater weakening in the standing of the Democrats.
Voters, says Greenberg, dislike controversy among Washington insiders, and they think Democrats have "no core set of convictions or point of view." In filibustering a Bush Supreme Court nominee, Senate Democrats will be fighting yesterday's battle at the behest of the lobbyists representing one of their core constituencies. In overcoming this filibuster, if they do, Senate Republicans will be satisfying larger but more inchoate core constituencies.
My own hunch is that the Democrats' posture of frenzied opposition won't get them where they want to go. But I'm not sure whether a battle over yesterday's issues helps Republicans, either
ping
"And even if Roe v. Wade were overruled and the decision on abortion returned to the state legislatures, abortion is not going to be banned anywhere except perhaps Louisiana, Utah and Guam."
Author might add Oklahoma, South Carolina, Missippi and....I think possibly Texas.
That's round one.
What he is saying is that the Republicans need to give in to the Democrats one more time.
This article is directed to the Republicans.
There is no indication that George W. Bush intends to nominate someone who appeared on a recent list of nominees acceptable to Senate Democrats. This would be to cede the appointing power from the president and the Senate majority to a minority in the Senate....
I don't give a rat's patootie about what the Senate Democrats think or whatever their interest groups think, either. If it takes the nuclear option, a full-blown stop of government, a knock-down dragout on the Senate floor, whatever. I want Bush to get the nominee HE wants. I also want him to pick the replacement for Rhenquist when he's ready to retire.
I'm tired of these Democrats and their sick ideas of how they think things should be.
...Voters, says Greenberg, dislike controversy among Washington insiders,...
This voter wishes someone he voted for would take a cane to some of his opposition ala Preston Brooks.
This voter considers the democrats the enemy of humanity and wants them crushed.
Too bad, this voter has nobody to vote for, in Washington, if they aren't traitors, they are gutless sacks of congress.
I hear ya'...
One of the few times I disagree with Barone. The Dems will fight, and filabuster, beascially because they have no chocie.. They're gonna lose no matter what they do, so why not keep the loony base happy and raise tons of money in thr process..What the Dems don't realize is that this battle is shaping up to be, in what is military terms, the "meeting engagement"..it will be decisive....moreso, BOTH sides really want it..the GOP base is eager for it...
Why? Rule changes are not cast in stone. Any senator can ask for the chair to rule if a filibuster is allowed by senate rules. It matters not what the presiding officer rules. Any senator can ask for a vote. Fify one senators prevail.
Any time, on any nomination, if the Democrats have 51 votes for filibuster, they can ask for a ruling and then vote to make a filibuster legal.
The nuclear option is not a single bomb. Any senators with 50 other senators in his pocket can turn any rule on or off at will.
Cloture rule was instituted in 1917. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds to three-fifths, or sixty of the current one hundred senators.
Since the cloture rule was instituted no vote has ever been taken in the Senate to change it to a simple majority. We are approaching, once again, a historic moment Tator and you, as usual, in your contrary way miss the moment. And by the way, the presiding officer, Dick Cheney, could very well cast the deciding vote. In fact it might very well be orchestrated exactly that way.
Nominating a conservative Hispanic would solidify the GOP support in both groups: restore some lost faith and end some cynicism among the religious right and further the move toward Hispanic identification with the Republican Party and Bush.
The article is right that the sole focus on abortion will hurt the R's somewhat. It puts the battle on the D's turf--that is, was the result in Roe the right one from a policy viewpoint. That question should be irrelevant in interpreting the Constitution.
Americans understand the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted as it reads, not as imagined in the feverish dreams of Noam Chomsky. Americans, for the most part, believe that judges should be judges, not legislators. We can win the battle on the principled argument and, argued this way, originalists sound sensible and moderate.
Without minimizing the importance of reversing Roe, this battle is about far more than abortion. It is about whether we have a Constitution that means anything or not. Roe is one of the worst decisions in a long line of cases decided by the left that says we do not have a meaningful constitution. Appointment of an originalist is one decent sized step toward getting our Constitution back.
One more thought, winning the battle on the principled argument sets the stage for winning more battles on that same argument. It educates the public about what the real issue is.
Currently more people determine their vote based on being pro-life than on favoring abortion rights. That may change with a Supreme fight, but maybe both sides will be amplified and the advantage remain with pro-lifers.
Mr. Bush wasn't elected so that Democrats could dictate Supreme Court nominations. He owes them nothing and that's precisely what he should give them.
© Copyright 2005 by Michael Bates
I agree with Mike. But that is not have things have been going down.
And I do not have a good feeling about this.
It is not President Bush that concerns me. It is the actions of the Senate Republicans that concern me.
Likewise. More than once, they've folded like the Cubs in September.
Depending on who Bush nominates .. I believe it will be another MAJOR BLOW to the dems.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.