Posted on 09/03/2004 5:29:02 PM PDT by neverdem
What the 2004 election election means for the judiciary.
New York I WENT TO A DEBATE yesterday at the Marriott Marquis in Times Square where the people you most wanted to hear from weren't on the program. The subject was the vexed one of the nomination and confirmation of judges, and Boyden Gray and Victoria Toensing, both lawyers in private practice in Washington, argued from a pro-Bush, Republican perspective. Nan Aron of the Alliance for Justice and Betsy Cavendish of NARAL Pro-Choice America from the point of view of the Democratic minority in the Senate.
As everyone knows, Senate Democrats have raised the ante in the judges' wars by filibustering nominees to the appeals courts. No Senate minority had ever done that, and the number of Bush circuit nominees blocked by Democratic filibustering is now in double digits, at 10. The Democrats have demonstrated that they can filibuster any nominee (including, in a second Bush term, a Supreme Court nominee) any time they like. They have effectively imposed a supermajority requirement on the confirmation of judges, since 60 votes are needed to break a filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote.
Senate Republicans, however, are not exactly powerless, and for more than a year now the central question regarding the confirmation of judges has been whether they would attempt a rule change that would facilitate a simple majority vote on judicial nominees. Not all of them are eager to sign onto that project, and yet it is clear that there is not even a chance of effecting such a rule change unless just about every Republican is willing to get behind the effort.
Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island are the holdouts. Arlen Specter may be one, too. They've not said much publicly about the issue, yet if the Republican leadership tries to press for a rule change this fall, as one aide to a GOP Senator told me is likely, they'll be the Senators to watch.
Gray, a veteran of the judges' wars who served as White House Counsel to "41," as he typically refers to George W. Bush's father, said during the debate here at the Marriott, which covered well-trodden terrain, that Republican Senators have nothing less than a "duty" to respond to the Democrats' unprecedented filibustering by effecting the rules change. Do Collins, Snowe, Chaffee, and Specter agree with that assessment, or not? Right now, that's the most important question you can put to Senate Republicans about the judges' wars.
And there is a question for Kerry, too: If he's elected President and faces a Republican minority, what will he do if the Republicans decide to copy the Democrats and filibuster his nominees? I asked Aron and Cavendish how they'd counsel President Kerry in that circumstance, and also how they'd counsel the Democratic majority. But they didn't answer the question, other than to say Kerry should nominate people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer and then "fight as hard as you can to get them confirmed."
I asked Gray how he'd advise Bush if he is reelected, the Republicans hold the Senate, and Democrats keep on filibustering. My whimsical solution is for Bush to find retired lawyers willing to serve as recess appointees and just starting appointing them, maybe asking one to clerk for the other during his "term" and then to appoint the clerk as the judge and ask the now former judge to be his clerk. Gray rejected the idea of resorting to recess-appointing, as I knew he would. He came back to changing the Senate rules so that you don't need a supermajority to get a judge confirmed. This debate is going to be continued, in the Senate.
If the GOP picks up 4 seats, as they well might..then it doesn't make a difference what the RINO gang of four does..
Spectre needs to switch parties.
"I'll follow the Constitution where it suits me, thank you very much."
And there is a question for Kerry, too: If he's elected President and faces a Republican minority, what will he do if the Republicans decide to copy the Democrats and filibuster his nominees? I asked Aron and Cavendish how they'd counsel President Kerry in that circumstance, and also how they'd counsel the Democratic majority. But they didn't answer the question, other than to say Kerry should nominate people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer and then "fight as hard as you can to get them confirmed."
This is easy: The Dems will change the rules. Most of them don't give a hoot about honor, there we shouldn't any reciprocation for our side's refusal to do this. All that matters is getting their laws passed, their people in power.
One thing I'm happy about: listening to PBS over the last week (normally I don't watch any TV): They still think that being "pro-choice", or pro-abortion, is an asset to a candidate. This is no longer true, and one of the most liberal commentators, Mark Shields, is himself pro-life.
Arlen owes Bush Bigtime!!! What a Clymer.
Six sounds good, anyone want to raise me?
Then the media will insist that the Senate change the rule.
And those four Republicans will then promptly vote with the Dems to do so.
Thanks for the links.
Be of good cheer, FRiend. Conservatives are winning the battle on this front. There's only so long a society can hide such a horrific truth, as the Silent Scream video and others are now freely available online (sorry I don't have a link offhand, but sounds like you don't need to see it).
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.