KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS

NRO Corner ^ | 05/12/05 | Ramesh Ponnuru

[Pikamax]

KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS [Ramesh Ponnuru]

CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a "radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."

This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.

He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:

"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .

"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."

[advance_copy]

Sort of off topic, but why would anyone want to get rid of the filibuster? That just means when the Dems are in charge of juducial nominees, we can't filibuster either.

Republicans have NEVER filibustered judicial nominees, ever. If they were ever to try it, Democrats would invoke the "nuclear option" in a heartbeat.

[Bella_Bru]

I had heard it was done in 1968 and there were threats in Clinton's time.

I still think it's dangerous to go with the nuclear option as we will NOT always be in charge.

[Bella_Bru]

The nuclear option just seems ugly no matter who is doing it.

[liberty2004]

Why does CBS continue to do such things?

because they are true Communist, American hating, scum. If something was edited to make the Right look good, the ACLU, leftist professors and the MSM would be screaming to shut them down. It is astounding the utter "lies" of CBS. They edited the Ken Star interview in order to "create" a lie. I just wish once the FCC would pull their license with the caveat, CBS would have to change the name or the news to "CBS Evening smears of the right."

[mdittmar]

Thanks,I was looking for that,how long before they pull it?

[cbkaty]

Rush: CBS refusing to release the transcripts to Starr sets up a 'his word vs ours' scenario. Unbelievable.

Transcripts are released to prove that the party in question was forthright and correct... That being the case, why would CBS ever release a transcript?

[advance_copy]

I had heard it was done in 1968 and there were threats in Clinton's time. I still think it's dangerous to go with the nuclear option as we will NOT always be in charge.

The ONE filibuster in history of a judicial nominee was against Abe Fortas, nominated for Chief Justice by LBJ in 1967. That was done only for four days while Fortas was withdrawn. Fortas had been involved in some crooked deals and almost no Senator's supported his nomination. The whole thing simply avoided an embarrassing vote for JBJ. Once again, the GOP could never get by with filibustering nominations as the minority party against the majority party's President. If they ever tried it, the RATS would invoke the "nuclear option" in blatant hypocrisy.

[Spunky]

When it came from SEE BS we should of known it was B*ll Sh*t

[advance_copy]

The nuclear option just seems ugly no matter who is doing it.

What seems ugly is a minority of Senators using the filibuster to exercise a veto over nominations by the President of the United States. It is flatly against the design for judicial nominations laid out in the Constitution.

[RinaseaofDs]

Disagree with you. Fox will pick this up, if they have a free enterprise bone in their entire body.

We'll see.

[advance_copy]

Won't it be really cool if the Senate bans the judicial filibuster, Bush's nominees are confirmed, AND CBS takes a big fall one more time.

[CitizenM]

Why anyone in their right mind would do an interview with anyone from CBS anymore puzzles me. Let them go ahead and have all the liberals they want.

Anyone with a rational, reasonable, conservative, Republican viewpoint should just stay away and never appear on that network or talk to any of their reporters.

They snip and cut the interviews to suit their on agenda anyway, so why bother?

[mdittmar]

The dems unconstitutional filibuster of a Presidents judicial nominees is the "ugly" part,the "nuclear option" would restore things to what the Constitution allows,"Advice and Consent of the Senate",(Article 2,section 2),an up or down vote!

[texas_mrs]

Wow, wouldn't that be having our cake and eating it, too!

[doubled]

If for some reason they want to do an interview, when will they learn to have their own camera, tape recorder or stenographer there so they can put the transcript out to show the editing that was done.

[LayoutGuru2]

< sarc> Come on now, it was a simple editing mistake, give 'em a break. < /sarc>

[advance_copy]

LOL - Yes it would. Remember, George W. Bush defeated John Kerry AND CBS took a big fall. So it's been done before.

[woofie]

This needs to be told far and wide...How dare they misquote (on purpose?) Judge Starr!

[William Tell]

Zechariah11 said:"I was furious at Ken Starr after the initial reports."

Sounds like CBS's report had a negative impact on your opinion of Ken Starr and damaged his reputation with you.

Let's see:

1) False or misleading statements.
2) Knowingly published to a national audience.
3) Intended to affect people's opinions regarding issues and persons.

Perhaps a good time to sell CBS stock.

[texasbluebell]

"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."

Ha. That figures.