Posted on 07/31/2002 3:39:33 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
A panel designed to take the political rancor out of selecting federal judges finds itself heaped in rancor as California Republican Party leaders squabble over whether the candidates are conservative enough for the bench.
It is the latest in a power struggle between White House-backed moderates trying to steer the party toward more election victories and conservatives who resent the intrusion. And it threatens to deepen the chasm between warring Republicans when they need unity to win back the governor's office.
"The conservative base of the Republican Party is very unhappy with this process," said Michael Schroeder, a former state GOP chairman. "One of the reasons they worked for the election of President Bush was to obtain conservative judges to the federal courts. But unless somebody is a pro-choice moderate or liberal, they need not apply . . . and that is wrong."
Gerald Parsky – who represents Bush's interests in California and who created the judge-picking commission with Democratic Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer – said its success is measured by its selection of candidates whom the Senate swiftly confirmed. "I'm very pleased with the process, as I think the president is," said Parsky, who noted that Bush's nomination this month of two judges to serve in the Los Angeles area leaves only one vacancy in California's federal district courts.
The debate swirls around a panel of Democrats and Republicans – no other state has one – that recommends to Bush who should become federal jurists in California. The idea is to avoid the battles that could erupt should Bush select someone unacceptable to the Democratic-controlled Senate, which must approve any nominee.
Conservatives dislike that Democrats have any say over who is nominated – a prerogative they say belongs to the president. Some House Republicans are irritated that they don't have a hand in the selections. And others believe the White House has meddled enough in the affairs of the California Republican Party.
"The president for 220 years has always (chosen) candidates for federal judges," said Shawn Steel, the current state GOP chairman. "This has been turned on its head in this experiment, which is a miserable failure." Beneath this debate is an enduring hostility between conservatives and Bush loyalists over the direction of the state GOP, which in recent years has lost control of the state Assembly, the governor's office and most state constitutional offices. Parsky reorganized the California GOP at Bush's behest, stripping the conservative Steel of power and giving a board of moderates control over spending and hiring. Such decisions could help more centrist Republicans win political office. To observers, the dispute over the judge-picking process is just the latest in a feud that could rob Republicans of their chance to take the governor's office from Democrat Gray Davis. "This . . . is what prevents Republicans in today's world from being elected in California," said one national Republican leader who asked not to be named. "And it's hurting (GOP gubernatorial candidate) Bill Simon, because he needs to have a united party in order to beat Davis."
The political bent of a federal judge is important because he or she can influence everything from Internet law to death-penalty appeals. The committee is made up of four six-member panels, one for each judicial district in the state. Each panel is evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats. They recommend candidates for district courts, U.S. Attorneys Offices and U.S. Marshals Offices. If smoothing the process is any measure, then the panels have done their work: They recommended two Northern California judges whom the Senate swiftly confirmed, an eastern district candidate almost certain to be confirmed, and two Los Angeles-area candidates whom Bush just announced. Only one vacancy remains – in the San Francisco area.
"I think the process is . . . effective in putting highly qualified judges on the bench," Feinstein said. But if ideology is a measure, then the reviews are mixed. Some in Congress and even in the Bush administration worry that with Democratic influence, no true conservatives will ever make their way to the bench.
In May, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzalez said during a speech that he was not "overjoyed at the way the commission process has worked in California." Later – and some say under pressure from Bush aides – he wrote Feinstein and Boxer, explaining that he was merely frustrated "over the pace of recommendations."
Conservative leaders who dislike the panel include Reps. John Doolittle of Roseville and Dana Rohrabacher of Huntington Beach. Rohrabacher declined to comment, a spokesman said, because "it's just sticky and it goes all the way up to the president." Those who support the judge-picking process include some of the state's leading Republicans – Secretary of State Bill Jones, state Senate Republican leader Jim Brulte and David Dreier, a Covina congressman who leads California's congressional Republicans. "What is the point of nominating (judges) who have absolutely no chance of being approved?" asked Dreier's chief of staff, Brad Smith. "This is a practical solution to a political reality."
of course W has nothing to do with this
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.