SCOTUS appointments and filibuster strategy (Vanity)

[Bluegrass Federalist]

With the rumors of impending Supreme Court vacancies, it occured to me (and probably already has to many) that these vacancies may be in large part responsible for the startegy regarding appeals court nominees Estrada, Owen, Pickering and others. I have never believed that Bush or the Senate GOP were simply without a strategy, or had been out-maneuvered by the simple and obvious Democrat solution of a filibuster. My thought now is that Bush is waiting on the SCOTUS vacancies before going for the nuclear option of the point of order ruling from Cheney that filibusters of judicial nominees are unconstitutional (and/or not proper use of Senate rules).

If the nuclear option was used for Owen or Estrada, it would have given the Dems ammo to shout their usual nonsense that Bush is pushing an extermist agenda with extremist judges, and with their friends in the press do significant damage to Bush. By waiting until there are SCOTUS vacancies to break the filibuster and put them ALL through, he will not have already been damaged when the really important task of appointing Justices comes up.

The American people may be less likely to tolerate vacancies on the U.S. Supreme Court than on the Court of Appeals, and other than their liberal base, the Dems may have a harder time getting the American people riled up about breaking the filibuster.

Part of this comes from my thinking this would be a smart way to go. Part comes from my belief that Bush is a lot smarter than people think, including a lot of FReepers. I predict that the filibuster is broken on the SCOTUS nominees, and the other judges are pushed through very quickly.

Any thoughts?

[trebb]

While the Prez has not been vociferous about the obstructionism (Iraq, Terror and Tax Breaks to the fore...) he has made some public statements about it being wrong and anti-Constitutional. This is usually how he softens them up (make a few comments, then lay off for a while) so when the Dims think he's forgotten (what nitwits) he body-slams them. Let's pray for it...

[meenie]

Wishful thinking. This will be taken to court for sure by the Democrats. What better time to take it to SCOTUS than now? Is it smart strategy to prolong it closer to election? I think not because it will give the Democrats an issue which they lack now. The biggest problem the Democrats have now is a lack of issues. They have to sound like nitpickers unless more issues are given to them.

[Lou L]

It's an interesting strategy, but couldn't the Dems say that (untruthfully, of course), that Bush "was trying once again, to stack the SCOTUS to decide future presidential elections?" Wouldn't that backfire on Bush? How would the White House counter that?

[Bluegrass Federalist]

True, but we may never have a better chance than this. I don't want to see this issue hanging around until after 2004.

[DPB101]

Democrats win by presenting victims. Are there any here? Anyone who would be sympathetic to the public hurt by vacancies on the courts?

[Bluegrass Federalist]

Good point, but then when will we fill them? Or will we fill them with "moderates"? IMO, goining the SCOTUS by a solid majority (keep the Rehnquist seat conservative, put a conservative in O'Connor's "Swing vote" seat, and hopefully a conservative in Stevpens' seat) would be worth the risk of losing the White House. The GOP is always afraid to use political capital. Granted it gives them an issue, but what is the alternative? I'm asking, not fighting. This is an issue we have to win.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

I weould rather see the Dems take it to Court, challenging Senate rules, than the GOP take it to court challenging the filibuster. That would be a disaster. Let them be the ones resorting to the courts in an effort to overturn the will of the majority Constitutionally exercised. That would be a nice issue for the GOP, I think.

[Mind-numbed Robot]

Your idea has a fatal flaw, IMO, though I am not legally qualified to say so. That flaw, it seems to me, is that in order to have a nominee for the SC there first must be a vacancy. The ones talking about leaving are moderates and conservatives. That means that if a Constitutional challenge was made it would be heard by a partial court with liberals in the majority. We know how that will turn out. What I don't know is whether or not the court can convene without a full compliment.

[DPB101]

Or will we fill them with "moderates"?

No! Absolutely not! Democrats park an M1A2 Abrams tank on your lawn with its turret pointed at your front door, call you an extremist when you ask them to leave and then claim to do you a favor by replacing the tank with machine gun nests.

Democrats are have crossed the line into Bolshevik tactics now. We cannot compromise at all after the Senate filibusters and the Texas debacle. Doing so won't stop them, it will only encourage them to try for more.

[Bluegrass Federalist]

That was a rhetorical question, I would never seriously entertain the idea. Just making a point.

[DPB101]

Always the fear the GOP Senate will cave. A hangover from Clinton days I guess. So far they are doing OK. A couple more GOP seats in 2004 and everything will be fine.

Calling Democrats obstructionists worked last election. It should work with these nominations. Anything the GOP can do to make Congressional Democrats compromise is good. It alienates the Democrat base. Be nice if the Green party got 6% of the vote in 2004. That way Greens would be a thorn in the side of Democrats forever.

[fishbabe]

can you slip ajudge in the supreme court at a recess when congress goes home or would they have to wait for congress to reconvene?????????

[mabelkitty]

That makes no sense. Bush won the election. The SCOTUS didn't hand it to him.

[mabelkitty]

Bush is the President, and he has the right to appoint anybody he wants. The fact that Senate rules are unConstitutional does not change this fact.

A plain up or down vote is what is required and is the law. Period.

[kevkrom]

Wouldn't that backfire on Bush? How would the White House counter that?

"All we are asking for is for a straight up-or-down vote by the Senate."

Always remember, it was the 'Rats that turned "advise and consent" into a political circus.

[CA Conservative]

This will be taken to court for sure by the Democrats.

If they Pubbies use the nuclear option, the Dems can try to take it to court, but it won't get far. No court will step into a dispute about the application of internal Senate rules. The Constitution clearly allows each House to set their own rules. This is why the Pubbies have not taken the issue to court, although they might have a stronger case, arguing that the rule interferes with a Constitutional duty of the Senate.

[votelife]

I like the stategery. Or nominate Owen or Estrada for the Supreme. People won't like seeing Dems shut down the Senate in a time of war.

[Lou L]

I know that Bush won--I'm just suggesting what the "sore loser" Democrats have been implying ever since the 2000 election--that the presidency WAS handed to him. I don't agree with them of course, but I was merely pointing out what I thought their counter-response would be.

By the way, I like the response given in post #16, to this question.

[InterceptPoint]

It's an interesting strategy, but couldn't the Dems say that (untruthfully, of course), that Bush "was trying once again, to stack the SCOTUS to decide future presidential elections?" Wouldn't that backfire on Bush? How would the White House counter that?

The Dems would definitely use this as a reminder that "the SC helped Bush steal the election". This might motivate some hard core lefties but I don't see it affecting many if any of the House or Senate seats. OTOH, getting the right people into the Supreme Court will have a lasting effect on this nation and the Bush Legacy. He has to do it even if there is some risk of the loss of a few seats here and there. I don't think it will happen, particularly in a year where a Bush landslide is at least possible.

Go for it W. Give us a Supreme Court that honors the Constitution and not the leftist agenda.