Posted on 10/06/2005 11:21:55 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
October 06, 2005, 1:49 p.m.
A liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
I am hearing two primary arguments for Harriet Miers by those who are close to the president:
1. The president knows her, believes she is the best candidate, and we should trust him because his past judicial picks have been excellent; and
2. There are not enough Republican votes in the Senate to win an ideological fight over a nominee like Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, or Janice Rogers Brown.
I and others have already addressed the first point at some length over the last several days. As I wrote Monday morning in Benchmemos:
The president and his advisors missed a truly historic opportunity to communicate with the American people about their government, the role of all three branches of the federal system, and the proper function of the judiciary. More importantly, they have failed to help the nation return to the equipoise of our constitutional system. And the current justices whose arrogance knows no bounds will be emboldened by this selection. They will see it as affirmation of their “extra-constitutionalism.” The president flinched. ...
Unfortunately, no new information has been presented to change my view.
But the second argument about the impotence of the Senate Republicans is worth some discussion, too. The fact is that this Gang of 14 moderates, led by Senator John McCain, did make it much more difficult for the president to win an ideological battle over a Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats did, in fact, send warnings that they were prepared to filibuster the second nominee. And under such circumstances, the president would have needed 60 votes to confirm his candidate, not 51.
Lest we forget, Majority Leader Bill Frist and the overwhelming majority of his Republican colleagues were poised to defeat the unprecedented and frequently used (or threatened) filibuster tactics that had been unleashed against President Bush by the Democrats to weaken his appointment power. The big media editorialized against it. George Will wrote at length (albeit unpersuasively) against it (see here and my response to him here). And Bill Kristol's favorite presidential candidate in 2000, John McCain, the leader of the Gang of 14, was all over the media making clear he would torpedo such an effort. And that's exactly what he did. This in no way excuses the president's blunder in choosing Miers. But the ideological confrontation with the likes of Senator Charles Schumer and the Democrat left that many of us believe is essential, including Will and Kristol, was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose. This president has been poorly served by his Republican "allies" in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
Today the president would have to persuade seven of the most unreliable Republican senators to trigger the so-called nuclear option in order to clear the way for an up-or-down vote for, say, a Luttig. It is not at all certain or even likely that Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, and/or Susan Collins — the most liberal of the seven — would have voted for the Senate rule change for the purpose of confirming a solid originalist. And it's likely the Democrat leadership would have succeeded in convincing at least some (if not most) of the seven Democrat moderates to oppose a rule change. I have no doubt that this was part of the White House's political calculation. And it's possible the president didn't want to limp into this fight. That's no excuse. But McCain — who wants to be president and has now endorsed Harriet Miers — and his cadre must not escape scrutiny for their blunder.
— Mark R. Levin is author of the best-selling Men In Black, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and a radio talk-show host on WABC in New York.
* * *
BTTT
Mark Levin, too??? Wow, I can just imagine the scurrilous comments the zombies have hurled at him over this. Amazing that Bush wants to totally divorce his electoral base from the views of so many distinguished---and hitherto lauded on this forum---conservative commentators. I don't recall even Clinton being this hysterically sensitive to criticism (and he was admittedly pretty much neurotically sensitive).
I can't understand, if Levin believes this of McCain and the gang, what he wanted Bush to do. What would it serve to have the type of nominee he had hoped for demeaned and debased by the Democrats followed by a display of Republicans who wouldn't trigger the "nuclear option?"
As for McCain...I made up my mind long ago that I would never vote for him.
Bush's troops are becoming demoralized by this. FIGHTING the Democrats would immensely help in 06 and 08.
There is always somebody who wants to run everybody off the cliff.
McClain sees himself as like Henry Clay, the "Great Compromise" guy. Obviously Clay stopped the Civil War from starting in 1830-40 instead of 1861, but in 1840 the casualty rate would have been much lower and the Constitution preserved. (Railroads.) Sometimes it is better not to put off "civil" war.
Levin makes many excellent points, but the fight should have been fought anyway. I would have nominated Bork or Coulter. Both are well qualified, unlike Quag-Miers.
The fault is with McCain, that jerk Lindsey Graham and the rest as well as with the President who did not exploit his bully pulpit and arouse the country against the filibuster concept and intimidate the Senate into good behavior.
Now we have a nominee who is a cipher, who moves the national debate not one centimeter toward a proper understanding of judicial review. At best, we get lucky and get a reliable vote. But we set no standard against which a democrat president will have to contend.
Hear, hear.
Nice to hear a rational argument.
bttt just for McLame
Being that the "Gang of 14" already concluded that Janice Rogers Brown was acceptable, I believe Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and John Warner all would vote in favor of a Senate rules change if their Democratic counterparts broke with the Gang and joined a filibuster.
McCain will never win the primary, this will and should be placed at his feet, as well as Lindsey "Twinkle-in-his-eyes" Graham.
As for McCain...I made up my mind long ago that I would never vote for him.
me either, he might list himself as repub, but he is nothing more than an agent for the left
We can only hope. I also think Giuliani is an idiot for not running and definately winning the NY governors seat and instead thinking he can run for Prez or be a VP on a McLame Giuliani ticket.
I believe, as I think Mark does, that it is high time that Bush and staunch Republicans put their mark in the sand. They need to take a stand, which up to now they have not and have let the demorats run the show. It's high time that the Republicans fight back in the interests of conservativism. If they don't, what is the sense in having two parties.
...was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose. This president has been poorly served by his Republican "allies" in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
-----
Exactly. This is why it can be said, without error, that the Senate Repubs have done a terrible job of controlling the radical leftist (AND MODERATE) enemy in the Senate. Also another reason why the RINOs need to be cleaned out and STRONG, FIGHTING, CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP restored to the Repub party. We are paying a big price for the lack of same.
Strategically, it would have been useful to flush the Gang of 14 out. If McCain has any POTUS aspirations, he would've voted for Luttig. I'd like to see the delicate Senator Graham vote down Luttig-- that'd went over like General Sherman Day in South Carolina. And Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas), Landrieu who lost her base, Bobby Byrd (even without a Capito challenge), Bill Nelson and Senator Warner (R,VA) would have had a helluva time voting against a brilliant Virginian-- especially if doing so made them look like soft on crime Pinkos.
I think he's precisely wrong. McCain would have no choice but to vote nuclear in a nomination fight. The guy has to win a few primaries if he wants to be president.
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.