Kristol: Reversing the Bork Defeat

The Weekly Standard ^ | July 1, 2005 | William Kristol

[Blood of Tyrants]

Indeed, looking at the current Senate, I do not believe that there are 40 Democratic votes to sustain a filibuster against an objectively well-qualified conservative nominee.

And he was doing so well until he wrote this.

[aynrandfreak]

Even though I agree with his sentiments, I've lost respect for Kristol. Some head of the Neo-Con conspiracy he turned out to be.

[armymarinemom]

Even though I agree with his sentiments, I've lost respect for Kristol. Some head of the Neo-Con conspiracy he turned out to be.

Amen to that. He lost his guts somewhere this past year.

[Torie]

Kristol is making a judgment call, not an ideological one. We shall see. He may be right. I suspect he is, unless Brown (who won't be), or maybe Luttig is nominated. I also doubt there will be a filibuster.

[RightWinger]

the core themes of modern American conservatism: the relinking of constitutional law and constitutional jurisprudence to the Constitution.

He got that right!

[fatima]

Why do you doubt there will be a filibuster Torie.

[CobaltBlue]

I think there will, indeed, be a filibuster.

On the other hand, I think Bork screwed himself when he fired Independent Counsel Archibald Cox during the Saturday Night Massacre. What goes around, comes around.

[Torie]

Because it would not be sustained, if the names other than the names I mentioned are nominated, or the Nuke option would pop up. Smart conservative nominees respected for their mind and temperment who do not seem like loose cannons, are not going to be bounced in that way. That is my guess. I could be wrong.

[Siobhan]

EDITH HOLLAN JONES -- we could have had her instead of Souter if the then President hadn't misplaced his nerve.

So I say EDITH HOLLAN JONES now.

Siobhan

[Soul Seeker]

It's really very simple.

We'll have a filibuster unless:

1) Democrats in red states do not want this hung around their neck next election.

2) RINO's such as Lindsey and DeWine stop courting the elites and do the job their constituents expect of them by nuking the filibuster.

I tend to give the first one better odds. Political preservation can be a powerful motivator, though fear is being enforced from their leadership. The second option concerns bridging the RINO's arrogance, a little tougher to climb that ladder.

[fatima]

Brown or Luttig.

[lfrank]

Wouldn't it be something if President Bush nominated Judge Janice Rogers Brown to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and/or did a recess appointment for Robert Bork? I would prefer the recess appointment and a pronouncement that he wants to fill the Supreme Court without have to wait for the obstructionist senate- [Middle English senat, from Old French, from Latin sentus, from senex, sen-, old, an elder; see sen- in Indo-European roots.] to fulfill their Constitutional obligation to advice and consent on the President's nominations. That would definitely send a strong message...

[scrabblehack]

Hmmm...times have changed...Boyden Gray said that they never had 60 votes for Clarence Thomas...however a vacancy on SCOTUS is front page news, while a vacancy on a lower federal court is not. Eventually both sides of the aisle would eventually want the story off the front page -- interest groups would run out of money sliming nominees, no?

[fatima]

That would be nice >I met Judge Bork his beautiful wife and he is ready and fit.

[Conservatrix]

Why not just nominate BORK again?

Is there a law against it?

[balrog666]

Nuclear Option, here we come!

[Czar]

I also doubt there will be a filibuster."

Probably not if the nomination is a middle-of-the-roader to very-slight-conservative. On the other hand, if it's a strict conservative constitutionalist, I would expect the Rats to fight to the last Republican standing...

[The_Eaglet]

Why not just nominate BORK again?

I would be grateful to President Bush if he were to do so.