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.
* * *
"Inciteful" or "insightful?"
And do you not remember that NOT A ONE OF THEM would go on record stating what "out of the ordinary" meant to them?
You need to read your so-called evidence. The questionnaire that you are citing about her support for full civil rights for gays was actually "do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?" Same civil rights is a far cry from supporting the homosexual agenda, esp in 1989. In the same questionnaire she opposed the repeal of the Texas sodomy law and indicated that she was NOT seeking the endorsement of the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas.
The financial contributions to Dems were in 1988. No further contributions to dems after that.
You need to be careful about believing everything Mr. Farah writes.
PLEASE....after all her absolute nastiness - first over Roberts and now over Miers, she deserves nothing. Calling for the President's impeachment and saying things like Bush hates conservatives really proves her intellect...
It's not that I don't agree that the Democrats should be held to account, it's that I realize that as long as the Republican majority includes 5-7 marginal votes it cannot be counted on. They have proved this multiple times. This begins to remind me of the old fashioned football coach that persists in running the ball up the middle after 10 plays and 0 yards gained. At some point you have to call another play, the objective is to advance the ball however you can within the rules.
I don't see why Frist could not have just gotten 51 senators to sign letters of agreement and sent them to the president, confirming the candidate, and let the democRATs have their little whine-fest. That would have satisfied the Constitutional dictates and left the minority in just that - minority status.
The Constitution just says that a majority of the senate has to agree in order to comfirm an appointee, it does NOT dictate the formality by which the consensus is achieved.
I disagree. If they had tried to 'educate' America during a battle royal for the Supreme Court, all that would have done is create months of negative press for the President from the MSM, compounded by incessant yammering from the Dems. The people who NEED to know all this stuff would have tuned out from all the screaming and yelling and gone one blissfully unaware of duties of the Supreme Court.
Please put aside your concern that Meir is some kind of mole because she was once a Democrat. Most older, deep south posters here were once Democrats too, myself included. We were just as conservative then as we are now, but registering Democrat was the only way you could vote in all elections because no republicans were running in most races.
And for that matter.....Ronald Reagan was once a democrat too.
Listen, I never even heard of Harriet till the other day, I was hoping Bush would pick Edith Clement. But I do love it when Bush surprises the hell out of senate Democrats, and he's done it this time, in spades!
I'm thinking by the time the hearings begin, most of us dubious, doubtful conservatives will have figured out why Bush went with Harriet.
It wouldn't surprise me one bit if Bush asked Harriett to subject herself to this battle, knowing full well she would be rejected, so that Democrats and RINOS would be more likely to let through his real pick next time.
I do not know who Farah is. I read extensively, but I do not drink the Kool-Aid.
Yes, but without anything to fight for as a collective group (like Luttig or Brown) Republicans will become fractured and causeless.
What world do you live in...in the real world if you don't have enough votes, you lose. A second term President can't lose and still retain any power. I am so sick of all this whining. President Bush did the best he could with the weak kneed sissy Senate.
In the end, the gang of 14 justifies themselves. The left is an expert at this sort of thing. The President loses-why put the nominee or the country through this if you have a conservative who can make it without a fight.
Why not?
Good one, LOL. Both I'd say.
{:>)
One thing I think we should do is let the RNC know that it is the hapless Senate majority we hold accountable. The anger being directed towards Bush lets them off the hook. But on the hook is exactly where they should be for their failures on judicial nominees, fiscal constraint, social security reform, etc. etc. etc. I'm tired of the McCains and Grahams managing their careers at the expense of the agenda. And I'm tired of them waiting for Bush to do the heavy lifting on every issue, including the intervening and campaigning to regain their majority, while they tip toe around.
BTTT
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.