Lead The Way - Senate Republicans not understanding true stakes in coming judicial showdown.

WEEKLY STANDARD.COM ^ | APRIL 14, 2005 | HUGH HEWITT

[CHARLITE]

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.

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?

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.

[spyone]

Truly. Republicans are so timid...afraid...freaked out about this huge issue. Their performance to date has been a disgrace. The best way to tackle a tough issue is head on. Better 4 years late than never. Get on with it and let the chips fall where they may.

[John Lenin]

The myth is that it is just republicans who want judges that follow the constitution, they are lieing to us.

If you don't believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, just say so, John McCain !

[Williams]

Thought I'd pour a little rain on the judicial "nuclear option" parade. Sure I'll get tons of debris thrown at me for this, but has anyone considered that the dems would be able to ram all the worst liberal judges through next time they control the Senate?

I agree with bringing up the judges for votes, want conservative judges, but I never see this risk discussed. I'm guessing it's the main reason republicans are reluctant to change the rule.

I can shoot down my own point because I don't trust the dems and they would probably change the rule themselves, and the republicans never block their nominees anyway. But still the turnabout risk is a real consideration.

[Once-Ler]

Already posted Hugh Hewitt: Lead the Way

[Milhous]

Tom DeLay behaved as a true leader during the past week. Tom's resolve allowed New Media to triumph over Olde Media and increase its own clout at the expense of Olde Media.

[Constitutionalist Conservative]

Sure I'll get tons of debris thrown at me for this, but has anyone considered that the dems would be able to ram all the worst liberal judges through next time they control the Senate?

What has stopped them from doing this in the past? Republicans have never filibustered a nominee that had simple majority support, no matter how odious the nominee.

You need to understand that we're not trying to establish some new way of doing business. We're just trying to get back to status quo ante.

[Republican Wildcat]

I can shoot down my own point because I don't trust the dems and they would probably change the rule themselves, and the republicans never block their nominees anyway. But still the turnabout risk is a real consideration.

How can that last line possibly make any sense, given what you said before it?

[Always A Marine]

Ping to read later...

[John Valentine]

...but has anyone considered that the dems would be able to ram all the worst liberal judges through next time they control the Senate?

To do what you suggest, the Democrats would have to control BOTH the Senate AND the White House.

And, I'd suggest that if the American people ever allow such a thing to come to pass, they deserve exactly the judges they will get. That is the essence of democracy.

Furthermore, I expect that if the Democrats ever did find themselves in such a felicitous situation, they would NEVER allow Republicans to thwart them with a filibuster. The judicial filibuster would be history before you even noticed it was gone, and with less fanfare than a cafeteria lunch.

All the more reason to get as many Constitutionalist judges on the bench RIGHT NOW, while we DO have the Senate and the White House.

Can you think of a better time to do it?

[Choose Ye This Day]

Time to light up the switchboards in Washington.

[westerntemplar]

The Republicans had better get their act together. If they can't get the will to kill the filibuster for judicial nominees by changing the Senate rules - when they have a clear majority - then they do not deserve to lead.

[RonDog]

Indexing RELATED threads:

Lead The Way - Senate Republicans not understanding true stakes in coming judicial showdown.
	Posted by CHARLITE On News/Activism 04/14/2005 10:56:44 PM PDT · 11 replies · 303+ views WEEKLY STANDARD.COM ^ | APRIL 14, 2005 | HUGH HEWITT
Hugh Hewitt: Lead the Way
	Posted by RWR8189 On News/Activism 04/14/2005 8:42:16 PM PDT · 10 replies · 310+ views The Weekly Standard ^ | April 14, 2005 | Hugh Hewitt
Lead the Way
	Posted by swilhelm73 On News/Activism 04/14/2005 2:15:12 PM PDT · 1 reply · 62+ views weeklystandard ^ | 04/14/2005 | Hugh Hewitt

[MCRD]

And what makes you think the Rats wouldn't use the nuclear option themselves if needed? That's the biggest hole in the argument about not going nuclear.