Yet with only 45 Republican Senators (many of whom were Rockefellar types) he was able to get Scalia confirmed. And with a similar Republican minority, Bush Sr. was able to get Thomas confirmed. Thomas was a battle royal but what is wrong with that? Sometimes you have to fight for what you believe.
Now with 55 Senators some of whom are admittedly RINO the President won't even try to get one of our superbly qualified judges confirmed? That is spineless!
Reagan also nominated O'Connor and Kennedy -- not exactly paragons of conservatism -- in addition to Scalia.
Reagan won in a comparative landslide, yet his very first appointment was the moderate O'Connor, in 1981. Scalia wasn't nominated until 1986. That was a different time, before the process was politicized with fight over Bork. There was absolutely no fight over Scalia, who was confirmed 98-0. You can't credit Reagan with "guts" for picking a guy who had no opposition.
In fact, I'd be far more inclined to criticize Reagan for picking a moderate like O'Connor with his very first pick after winning a landslide, rather than waiting 5 years for a vacancy that might not have happened to nominate Scalia.
The process became greatly politicized with Bork, and even more so with Thomas. But again, crediting Bush for the guts to appoint Thomas doesn't fit. He was considered a comparatively non-controversial shoe-in until the Anita Hill thing blew-up late in the confirmation process.
Now with 55 Senators some of whom are admittedly RINO the President won't even try to get one of our superbly qualified judges confirmed? That is spineless!
No, that's a distortion. This "spineless" President nominated a number of extremely conservative justices to the various courts of appeal and fought as hard as he could for them. When a bunch were filibustered, he flipped the Senate the proverbial bird and renominated the exact same people. The result was the waffling of the RINO's and creation of the Gang of 14.
Bush pushed as hard as he could with his nominees, and the Gang of 14 experience showed him the limits of what he could do. They were burning up the phone lines with Sneators, meeting with them personally, and now know exactly what kind of support they have, and its limits. That knowledge is what necessarily drives the current nominees.
Assuming your memory is better than mine, did either of them have anyone like McCain working to undermine him and showcase himself?
Nope. Reagan had a majority in the Senate from 1981-1986 and (having made a campaign promise to name a woman) he wasted one of the two nominations he had while he had the majority on O'Connor. Then after the Dems regained the majority in the Senate, he named Bork - and we ended up with Justice Kennedy.Bush 41 never had a majority in the Senate, and he managed to get one conservative justice out of two tries. We don't want another failed nominee, like Bork or Nixon nominee Carsworth, whose defeat let to the selection of Blackmun - author of Roe.
"Yet with only 45 Republican Senators (many of whom were Rockefellar types) he was able to get Scalia confirmed. And with a similar Republican minority, Bush Sr. was able to get Thomas confirmed. Thomas was a battle royal but what is wrong with that? Sometimes you have to fight for what you believe."
That all very nice but due to the feckless behavior of the pubbie 'majority' the rats have played the fillibuster card.
Frist and the Senate pubbies have done NOTHING about.
THIS IS THE POLITICAL REALITY BUSH HAS TO DEAL WITH.
IMO Sowell is the wisest of the conservative pundits. He is exactly right in the case he presents in this article.
And that vote wasn't even close. It was a blowout.