Posted on 10/28/2005 8:12:11 PM PDT by wagglebee
Senate Democrats are trying, once again, to "reach out” and help President Bush with his next selection to the U.S. Supreme Court.
As with White House counsel Harriet Miers – a trusted Bush confidante who withdrew her nomination Thursday – Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) hopes to sway the president toward a "consensus nominee.”
Reid reportedly recommended Miers as a Supreme Court nominee before the president made his announcement Oct. 3. Soon afterward – in a surprise to many – conservative Republicans blasted the selection, which led, in part, to her withdrawal notice.
Well, once again, Democrats are trying to have their say and their way regarding a Supreme Court appointment. Reid and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), a Senate Judiciary Committee member, penned a letter to the president Friday where they strongly urged him "to refrain from nominating to the Supreme Court any of the handful of judicial nominees who were filibustered during the past four years, or any other similarly divisive candidate.”
Someone needs to remind these Democrats that they are the minority party.
Reid and Leahy continued (emphasis added):
"We regret that Ms. Miers was not even afforded the opportunity to answer her right wing critics at a Judiciary Committee hearing … we urge you to pick one of the many qualified mainstream women and minority candidates who can win widespread bipartisan support in the Senate and among the American people.”
Note the Democrat buzzwords in that comment – mainstream, women and minority.
So, according to Reid and Leahy, respected judges, such as Michael McConnell and Michael Luttig – both of whom are white males and who are rumored to be on nearly every conservatives "short list” – should not be considered for nomination. They are being pre-emptively "Borked” on the basis of gender and skin color. Sounds fair, doesn’t it?
Do the Democrats actually think they have a voice in this process? Fat chance. Look what happened with Miers.
Again, according to their letter, Reid and Leahy seem to have provided the criteria for selecting Justice Janice Rogers Brown – a black woman – but, alas, she is considered a libertarian-conservative judge, and received a rocky reception the last time she stood before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Seems like she would be the ideal candidate to select, just to make things interesting.
If, however, Bush actually considers the Reid-Leahy request, he should read several times this phrase contained within their letter:
" … Justice Sandra Day O’Connor [should] be replaced by a mainstream nominee, not by an activist who would bring an ideological agenda to the Court.”
Someone in the "mild and moderate” mold of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, perhaps? Get serious.
The Democrats actually believe they are "entitled” to the associate justice position being vacated by O’Connor, whom they swore was a conservative many times during her more than two decades on the High Court. Now, they value O’Connor as an "important” swing vote that the court needs, not an "ideologue,” such as those judges favored by the "right wing” of the president’s Republican Party.
Well, there is no entitlement to be had by any political party, save for the privilege afforded to the president who is in a position to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court.
By this measure, and in light of the Reid-Leahy letter, Bush should remember that any selection that will upset liberal Democrats will likely serve the U.S. Supreme Court, the Constitution - and his conservative Republican base – quite well.
Merit and excellence should lead the selection process, not quotas.
Thanks for the letter, Senators. Unlike Harriet Miers, it’s a keeper.
Schumer and Leahy were both taking their share of shots at Miers - Schumer even implying that Miers could not be confirmed and that he wasn't impressed with her. Why they are trying to say the "right wing" was entirely responsible for what happened is beyond m---oh, wait...no it isn't, they are Democrats - they are LYING.
Perhaps the President also should remember what Democrats' promises are worth. They are perfectly capable of urging him to nominate a mediocre candidate, and then shooting the candidate down in the senate hearings.
As I recall, Bush's father was persuaded to raise taxes after the Democrats sincerely promised not to use it against him in the next election campaign.
"Note the Democrat buzzwords in that comment – mainstream, women and minority. "
====
And Bush should have a great answer to that: Janice Rogers Brown!
They ran ads attacking him for signing the bill they wrote themselves. Democrats are not to be trusted.
Recent history should tell the President that cooperating in any fashion with the Democrats or the press is unwise at best.
It's time to ignore them into irrelevancy.
Brown Favorite Among Conservatives; Miers Did the Right Thing
http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?82a5cc3b-b14c-48d9-b295-46816ab3ecfb
The overnight survey conducted by GOPUSA of over 1,000 primarily conservative Republicans shows that 72 percent believe Miss Miers did the right thing by withdrawing her nomination. Only 12 percent felt that the withdrawal was not the right thing to do, while 16 percent were not sure.
When presented with a list of some of the most frequently circulated names for Supreme Court consideration, a near majority (of the conservative Republicans, see above)(46 percent) favored Judge Janice Rogers Brown. The complete results of the respondents are as follows:
Judge Janice Rogers Brown: 46 percent
Judge Priscilla Owen: 12 percent
Judge Michael Luttig: 8 percent
Solicitor General Ted Olson: 8 percent
Judge Emilio Garza: 3 percent
Judge Edith Jones: 3 percent
Judge Samuel Alito: 1 percent
Judge Karen Williams: 1 percent
Larry Thompson: 1 percent
Someone Else: 16 percent
I fear if Presidents Bush does not do what we elected him to do then the next couple of elections may be devastating. I still have friends who don't speak to me after those two elections...
Hearing the blather from the dems causes the picture if Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown. No matter what they say they are not to be trusted under any circumstances.
Why won't these guys ever name names as to who they think would be a qualified uniter centrist judge just like O'Connor? Just curious. It would certainly help elucidate what those terms mean in their minds.
There has been a lot of talk today about Samuel Alito being the choice. I didn't know much about him until today, but what I've read has been very impressive. It seems to me that the polls about who would be the best nominee really just reflect name recognition of conservative judges. If that is the case, it's still up in the air. I am certain that Bush will nominate an originalist, but I don't think he's really up for a full-blown battle with the 'Rats.
The 'Rats want Bush to nominate Alberto Gonzales. For some reason the left was totally opposed to Gonzales being Attorney General for four years, but would love to see him on the Supreme Court for the rest of his life. Luckily, I don't thing there is a chance in hell of this happening, or Bush would have already done it.
Reid like Miers and publicly said so. They all liked Meirs. That was their undoing - poor poker playing.
And who did Clinton choose to replace the reliably conservative (male) Byron White? That's right. The uber-liberal (female) Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Payback's been a long time in coming. Stick it to them, Dubya.
"Perhaps the President also should remember what Democrats' promises are worth."
Sometimes Bush is dumb, but I do not believe he will be dumb enough to nominate 2 Meirs in a row.
The Dem'crats are definitely playing defense, in such way it ALMOST makes them seem to have some real substance to their resistance. If it were not for ad hominem attacks, they would have no ammunition at all.
Gonzales would be the absolute worst choice he could make at this point. It would be seen as more cronyism; it would be seen as pro-abortion; it would be seen as supporting affirmative action; it would even be seen as weakening our borders.
The President probably wanted to nominate Gonzalez earlier, but decided it would not be feasible. At this point it would be far worse than it was back then, when his name was being floated.
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.