Posted on 11/18/2003 10:40:10 AM PST by JohnnyZ
Washington - Amid a lot of bitter venting on both sides, Pennsylvania Republican Arlen Specter defended last week's marathon Senate debate on the blocking of a handful of Bush judicial nominees.
"We're trying to make C-SPAN the channel of choice," said Specter, who called the round-the-clock speech-a-thon "even more interesting than the soaps."
North Dakota Democrat Byron Dorgan suggested C-SPAN watchers were having a different reaction - that we're "just a bunch of windbags in blue suits."
When it comes to the war over federal judges, there's virtually nothing the two parties agree on.
Not who's right and who's wrong.
Not how it plays politically.
Not whether anybody out there even cares.
In Wisconsin, the three Republicans vying to take on Senate Democrat Russ Feingold are attacking him on judges and assert the controversy resonates with voters. Feingold and fellow Senate Democrat Herb Kohl both sit on the Judiciary Committee.
"I think it will be a huge issue," said GOP Senate candidate Russ Darrow.
Feingold doubts that.
"My opponents are trying to latch onto this, I think, because they're really stubbing their toes on some of their other issues," Feingold said. "People are much more focused on the health care and jobs and Iraq."
Whether the fight on judges remains a C-SPAN story - fodder mainly for each party's hard core - or looms larger in the 2004 elections may be answered in contests like Feingold's.
For now, it epitomizes an angry hardening between the parties in Washington. Last week's debate was a classic case of two sides talking past each other to their cheering sections at home, with ever dwindling portions of senatorial goodwill.
Utah Republican Orrin Hatch accused Democrats of treating President Bush's judicial nominees like "dirt." Bush called the Democrats' conduct "shameful." New York Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said the nominees blocked by Democrats were "lemons." Massachusetts Democrat Edward Kennedy said Democrats would "continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president."
Republicans are furious over the fact that Democrats have taken an entrenched tactic of the party out of power, the Senate filibuster, and applied it where it has rarely been used in the past - the confirmation of a president's nominees to the federal court.
The threat of a filibuster means it takes 60 votes to pass something, not a simple majority of 50.
That has allowed Senate Democrats to stop or delay six nominees (including two new ones Friday) who otherwise would win majority approval. All those nominees are for the federal appellate courts.
Democrats respond that they've approved the overwhelming majority of Bush's judicial picks - 168 confirmed, six blocked. And they say Republicans used different tactics to kill far more nominations by the previous president, Democrat Bill Clinton.
Hypocrisy, extremism charged The result of the escalating judicial wars is an intensely partisan standoff featuring mutual accusations of hypocrisy and extremism. In Washington, the issue is often portrayed as a hot button that stokes activists and raises money but hasn't engaged average Americans.
Republicans are hoping to change that.
State Republican Chairman Rick Graber contends that with both Kohl and Feingold on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Wisconsin Republicans are "very well aware of (the issue). It's something the Senate candidates (against Feingold) are talking about at every stop. I think talk radio is talking about it around the state."
As for the broad public, Graber said, "I have a tough time arguing that it's up there with the economy and the war against terrorism," but "to say no one's paying attention is wrong."
Graber accuses Kohl, Feingold and other Democrats of "playing strictly political games" and of "incredible hypocrisy" for demanding nominees get a vote when Bill Clinton was president, then depriving some nominees of votes under Bush.
Vacancy rate under 5% Kohl, who is not up for re-election, took to the floor during debate Thursday to note that more than 95% of federal judgeships are filled, the highest rate in well over a decade.
"When you have a vacancy rate of less than five percent, how can anyone make the argument that there is something sinister going on?" Kohl asked.
"When I bring these facts up to audiences (in Wisconsin), some of which are more or less inclined to be Republicans, the issue just ends," Kohl said in an interview.
Kohl said of Republicans: "To say they should get to nominate and vote on and install any and every judge? That the minority has no rights? That to me is extreme."
Kohl's office said last week that he had voted for 94.8% of Bush's judicial nominees and opposed 12 nominees for the federal bench in 15 years.
The issue is sure to be joined in the Feingold Senate campaign.
Feingold 'blindly followed' In a statement Friday, Republican hopeful Bob Welch said Feingold "has blindly followed the liberal leadership of his party who are intent on embarrassing our president at every turn."
He quoted comments Feingold made in 1999 about the GOP's failure to move a Clinton nominee: "A nomination delayed is justice delayed. As we know, justice delayed is justice denied. A vacancy unfilled is justice unfulfilled."
Welch said the filibuster of judges was a dangerous precedent that would lead to a political backlash against Democrats.
Tim Michels, another Republican Senate candidate, said nominees from both parties should routinely be entitled to up-or-down floor votes.
"I would always support a judicial nominee getting an opportunity to go in front of the Senate and receive a vote, whether it's a Republican president or Democratic president," Michels said. "This issue is rising on people's radar screens."
Darrow, the other Republican in the race, called Feingold a "leader in the stonewalling effort" of judges.
"I think it's the worst kind of politics. It's why many Americans want a new face," Darrow said.
Feingold said his 1999 comments cited by Welch and other Republicans were prompted by the failure of Senate Republicans to even grant a committee hearing to some Clinton nominees.
"What I saw during the second term of President Clinton was a systematic effort on the part of Senate Republicans to block President Clinton's right to have his judges considered," said Feingold, suggesting there was more fairness in allowing nominees to at least proceed out of committee to the floor, even if some were held to a 60-vote threshold.
"I don't agree with those who say it requires a majority vote in every case," he said.
According to his office, Feingold has voted against eight of the 168 judges confirmed so far and against seven who have not been confirmed.
Feingold said his reasons for opposing the filibustered nominees go beyond ideology to issues such as ethics or the failure to answer questions or "evidence a person is hostile to settled law."
"I don't think it's damaging if it's done on a very limited basis," Feingold said of the filibuster. "There's no role for the Senate if we just approve everybody."
There's no question that he's favored, but what do you mean by easily? I can't see any opponent getting less than 45%.
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.