Posted on 07/03/2005 8:01:08 PM PDT by TheRobb7
Hugh's blog about the next SCOTUS nominee makes an interesting prediction (among many that are out there):
"the left will use the "return of Lochner" rhetoric as a smokescreen for its real strategy for defeating a nominee, which is the Townsel Gambit times a hundred.
The nominee can expect the left, harnassing the energy and fanaticism of MoveOn.org etc and using the technology of the web, to identify, canvass and interview every member of the nominee's high school, college and law school classes, plus associates at law firms and past clients as well as lawyers who have appeared before the nominee's court.
The close family and extended family of the nominee and spouse will get the same going-over. I wouldn't be surprised if we hear from "friends" of the nominee's younger sibling, or a first year associate or summer clerk in the nominee's former law firm the year the nominee left for the bench.
Of course every former government associate will also be a potential mark. And every conference the nominee attended will be analyzed for potential witnesses who will place the nominee in a bar with a stranger.
In short, this is going to be very ugly because the left will commit itself to winning at any cost, and if it takes a dozen Melody Townsels peddling two dozen slanders each, then that is what they will try.
Expect as well the demand for documents that cannot be produced or will not be produced under long standing precedents. That will not succeed in and of itself, but again delay will be the objective until the willing witnesses are found and coached.
Like Bush's DUI in the 2000 campaign, the biggest charge of all will drop just as the hearings come to a close, with the left hoping to force another round of hearings as happened with Justice Thomas.
The best defense here starts with the combination of a thoroughly scrubbed nominee and vigilance of new media on the center right and perhaps even skepticism of legacy media of sensational charges (unlikely).
The key, though, will be speed. Senators Frist and Specter need to establish a schedule, stick to it, and alert the public from day one that a filibuster will be met with the constitutional option after 100 hours of debate following the conclusion of the hearings.
The longer the process drags on, the greater the chance to invent and deploy Townsels. The more specific the schedule and the notice on the constitutional option, the greater the attention of the public and the scrutiny of would-be Anita Hills."
Message to Frist (Senator that I voted for):
NUKE 'EM!
"The key, though, will be speed. Senators Frist and Specter need to establish a schedule, stick to it, and alert the public from day one that a filibuster will be met with the constitutional option after 100 hours of debate following the conclusion of the hearings."
Your plan is correct but there are 2 problems in excecution:
1) If you haven't noticed, Frist has not done anything quickly yet. He is one of those people who do not have "speed drive" on the gear shift. Nor has he done anything strong (he is weak) or anything right (he's not even really a Republican, just chose that party when he decided to run for Senator because you have to pick one.
and
2) In case you haven't noticed, Specter is not on our side, but their side. In the Book, Passion for Truth, By Senator Arlen Specter with Charles Robbins (William Morrow, 2000) Specter explains the key to his thinking about the Supreme Court. (All page numbers cited in this article refer to this book.) Specter states that (p. 331-2) Borks theory essentially held that judges should not make law but should merely follow what was originally intended. In pure philosophical terms, Borks view that the Constitution should be interpreted as it was originally intended appeared to make sense, at least superficially. But the Constitution has turned out to be much more dynamic than that: a living, growing document, responsive to the needs of the nation.
Borks narrow approach is dangerous for constitutional government in America. Without adherence to original intent, Bork said, there was no legitimacy for judicial decisions.
A few pages later (p. 334), Specter gets near to the heart of how Liberals like himself want to use the Supreme Court to transform America. I was troubled by Borks writing and testimony that expanding rights to minorities reduced the rights of majorities. By that thinking, giving a criminal defendant Miranda warnings deprives the police of a confession, which might put a criminal back on the street to harm the majority. While perhaps arithmetically sound, it seemed morally wrong. The [law abiding] majority in a democracy can take care of itself, while individuals and minorities often cannot [referring in the case of Miranda to the minority of people in America that are criminals].
This is about as coherent as can be expected for an argument that supports Liberalism and the Left Wing agenda. However, the notion that it is within the realm of Republican Party thinking is absurd.
Finally, Specter comes to the crux of the matter (p. 337). The story of America is the story of decency and fairness, with the Supreme Court as the guarantor. Robert Bork displayed little grasp of that. After Brown v. Board of Education, nobody could argue in favor of segregated schools. But you dont get to Brown via original intent. You get there via evolving notions of decency and fairness.
..........and predicted that Southern Cal was going to get their helmets handed to them on New Years day?
Yep, same Hugh Hewitt who said the filibuster would be nuked "next week" for a month after he talked to some politico.
Hewitt is a good guy but a poor prognosticator.
His latest post on SCOTUS is good -- except for his smug prediction that the nominee is certain to be confirmed.
I listen to Hugh every day. I agree he's a good guy.
Definitely a good guy, and with a bit more cynicism, he would make a decent pundit.
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.