W.House Rebuffs Democrats on High-Court Nominees

Reuters | 06/18/2003

[Phlap]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Wednesday brushed aside a request by Senate Democrats for more influence in the selection of any U.S. Supreme Court nominations.

Democrats have urged President Bush to avert a major confirmation battle by consulting with them before making his selection. "The more we can consult, the more we can meet, the more we can talk about avoiding a major confrontation, the better off the country and the system will be," Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said after meeting with Bush at the White House.

But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called Daschle's request a "novel new approach to how the Constitution guides the appointment process."

"We always welcome thoughts, but certainly no one wants to suggest that the Constitution be altered," Fleischer told reporters.

While none of the nine justices have said they plan to retire, any such decision could be announced at the end of the court's term later this month.

White House counsel Al Gonzales said he was prepared to meet with Senate Democrats and others to discuss the "process and to consider suggestions you or others may have."

But in a letter to Democrats, he said it was the role of the president to decide whom to nominate. "The Senate will have an opportunity to assess the president's nominee and exercise its constitutional responsibility to vote up or down the nominee," Gonzales said.

"The Constitution is clear, the Constitution will be followed," Fleischer added.

The White House would not comment on whether Gonzales might be Bush's nominee for the next Supreme Court vacancy. "There's not even a vacancy," Fleischer said. "Unless and until there is a vacancy, this is idle chit chat."

Most of the speculation about possible retirements have focused on Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 78, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 73.

Though it is an open question if there will be any vacancies soon, interest groups on the political left and right have already begun campaigns to prepare for one or more.

[Phlap]

The headline should read "Democrats Fear Losing Filibuster Power." LOL!!!

[kayak]

bttt

[Always Right]

Is it even possible to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee?

[TomGuy]

The Senate Dems are starting to show some fear that a SC opening might occur soon.

Frist needs to nuke the Senate Judiciary Committie and get the current nom to the Senate floor. Frist needs to end the filibusters now. If he doesn't, GWB will not get an SC justice appointed until maybe after 2004.

[Paraclete]

This is all about painting Bush and the republicans as "unfair" and "unreasonable idealogues."

After all, the democrats tried to put their best foot forward and go the extra mile to communicate, blah, blah, blah.

[RonF]

Yeah, well, this sounds real bold of the President and all that, but as far as I can tell:

1) If he picks a candidate that is perceived by at least 41 Senators as being too extreme, he's not going to get that nominee approved, and

2) Failure to approve one of the President's judicial nominees is unlikely to be perceived as an issue that will hurt the re-election of those Senators likely to be the agents of such failure.

You may not like this, and you may even disagree with it, but that's how I see it. It appears to me that there are 41 Senators who don't think they've got much to lose in shooting down a judicial nominee that they feel is "extreme". Now, that may change after the 2004 elections, but that's where it is right now.

So my viewpoint is that the President may have a difference between who he'd like to put on the Supreme Court, and who he can actually get on the Supreme Court. And this is nothing new with either this President or this Senate. Once you get to a floor fight, people dig in their heels. I think that a little consultation beforehand might get him more than he'll get via total confrontation.

[Reagan Man]

>>>The White House on Wednesday brushed aside a request by Senate Democrats for more influence in the selection of any U.S. Supreme Court nominations.

A no-brainer!

[RonF]

See, I don't see what's so new about this. Legislation, treaties, etc. are all discussed among the WH and the Congressional leadership all the time. Why should an SC nominee be any different? Calling up the Congressional Leadership and discussing who on a short list said leadership figures can get approved is no more unconstitutional than calling them up about a bill and negotiating what clauses have to be modified in order to get it passed. Or, for that matter, calling individual members up after a nomination has been proposed and pressuring/persuading them to see things the Administration's way; often with a quid pro quo for the Senator or Representative's State or district.

[Behind Liberal Lines]

I think that a little consultation beforehand might get him more than he'll get via total confrontation.

With all due respect, to the Dems, "a little consultation" tends to mean "total capitulation."

[Adder]

Well, thank gawd there was no dithering around trying to pretend to be "fay-errrr" on THIS issue. Bush nicely told them the bugger off. Good for him...let the dems whine in the gutter.

[sinkspur]

Why should an SC nominee be any different?

The Constitution states specifically that Supreme Court justices are nominated by the President.

"Consultation" boxes Bush and every future president into basically gaining Senate approval before a candidate is even proposed.

This is preposterous. The only reason Daschle even sent this silly letter is that he fears that Gonzales WILL be nominated, and he's nervous that filibustering TWO Hispanics will be the death of the Democrat party in 2004.

[blanknoone]

I think the President should ask how many hours of "consultation" he wants, and sit down with him for however many hours he says, and nominate whoever the President wants.

They don't want consultation...they want to control the nomination. The President should expose their hypocrisy.

[paguch]

After the next election Tom Dasshole will be but a memory. South Dakota will have a new "Catholic" spokesperson for Planned Parenthood.

[RonF]

The Constitution also states that it's up to the Congress to pass legislation, but don't tell me that the President never gets involved. The Constitution says that the President and the Senate are both involved in this process, and the President is either going to have to consult at some level or another with individual Senators or the Senate leadership, or he can put out a nominee that 41 or more Senators will oppose and then try to put the screws to some of them publicly. His choice.

[Political Junkie Too]

You brush right past the legality of the filibuster argument. You say he has to convince 60 Senators to approve, but the Constitution says he has to convince 51 Senators. The objective is not to convince 60 Senators, it is to toss out the super-majority requirement by declaring the filibuster of Executive branch powers to be unconstitutional.

-PJ

[GretchenEE]

But White House spokesman Ari Fleischer called Daschle's request a "novel new approach to how the Constitution guides the appointment process."

I'm going to miss Ari.

Mr.
Daschle,
I do wish you'd get that primary motivation of delay, obfuscate, delay, obfuscate
(DODO)
out of your mind.

[Sonny M]

"Consultation" boxes Bush and every future president into basically gaining Senate approval before a candidate is even proposed.

They are trying to confuse article 2, section of the constitution, they know what it means, they are just turning this on its head. "advise and consent" does not mean tell him who to nominate.

[CGVet58]

"...Democrats have urged President Bush to avert a major confirmation battle by consulting with them before making his selection." - Sen Daschle.

I'm really, really, beginning to intensely dislike this fork-tongued slimeball. It's the Commie DemocRATS who have started and kept this confirmation battle going in the first place! And now he slithers around trying to change the advice and consent process of the Constitution, under the guise of said action being "for the good of the people".

Folks, ever notice how the leftists have honed their ability to use doublespeak to Orwellian heights? Leftist = Liberal; Group Preferences = Diversity; and now, chipping away at our Constitution = for the good of the People.

Gawd, what a waste of breathing space! I hope the good folk of South Dakota bounce this jerk back into the dustbins of history come next election.

Juan
CGVet58

[alloysteel]

"The more we can consult, the more we can meet, the more we can talk about avoiding a major confrontation, the better off the country and the system will be," Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle said after meeting with Bush at the White House.

Senator Daschle was reported to be "saddened" by the White House response.

[zip]

After all, the democrats tried to put their best foot forward and go the extra mile to communicate, blah, blah, blah.

You got it. Just like they communicated on Bork and Thomas, etc. (DimocRat definition of compromise: You give, we take.)