Posted on 07/05/2005 9:05:26 AM PDT by smoothsailing
July 05, 2005,
Sinister Strategies
The Left's plan to block judicial nominees.
All weekend we heard from the likes of Ralph Neas (People for the American Way), Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice), and other leaders of a left-wing coalition insisting that President Bush nominate a "mainstream conservative" to the Supreme Court, or that he unite the nation with a "pragmatist" or "moderate" in the character of Sandra Day O'Connor. This is real chutzpah. These are the same people and groups that have conspired to undermine President Bush's judicial appointments for over four years, and now seek to derail any nominee to the Supreme Court who isn't a proven activist.
The battle over the Supreme Court is now underway, and while the records of potential nominees are being closely examined, so too should the records of those on the left who have turned this entire process into a political circus be examined. It would also be nice if the always-objective mainstream media would take a look, too. And they don't have to look too far.
A few years back, memoranda apparently prepared by Senate staffers for their Democrat bosses exposed the entire unseemly enterprise and influence people such as Neas and Aron have over the judicial-confirmation process. The left-wing groups made detailed demands on Senators Ted Kennedy, Dick Durbin, Patrick Leahy, Chuck Schumer, and Harry Reid, to name some, to institute a variety of delay and smear tactics against numerous appellate-court nominees — many of whom were already sitting federal or state judges with outstanding records for professionalism and high character. At the time the memoranda were made public, the mainstream media chose to ignore their substance. Instead, they joined with the Democrats in search of the person or persons who released them.
Well, here are some choice examples of their contents. In November 2001, Kennedy met with representatives from these self-described civil-rights groups. A resulting memorandum, directed to Durbin, states in part:
"[The groups] also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment."
They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible.
A copy of the talking points on Estrada's nomination prepared for Kennedy to present to the Democratic Caucus states, in part:
"Key labor, civil rights, environmental, and administrative law cases are decided there, and we know it is a 'feeder' circuit for the Supreme Court. The White House is almost telling us that they plan to nominate him to the Supreme Court. We can't repeat the mistake we made with Clarence Thomas."
Clearly the Senate Democrats have a special contempt for minority judicial candidates who don't share their activist agenda and approach. Indeed, these minority candidates are believed to be more dangerous to their political objectives than white judicial candidates with whom they also disagree philosophically. Yet the fact that such a shameful mentality is written in black and white for all to read appears to have elicited no interest from the mainstream media. Kennedy was never asked anything about it during his many television appearances last weekend.
In a stunning April 17, 2002, memorandum purportedly written to Kennedy, a staffer states, in part:
"Elaine [Jones of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund] would like the [Judiciary] Committee to hold off on any 6th Circuit nominees until the University of Michigan case regarding the constitutionality of affirmative action in higher education is decided by the en banc 6th Circuit [meaning, all the judges on the Court]. ...The thinking is that the current 6th Circuit will sustain the affirmative action program but if a new judge with conservative views is confirmed before the case is decided, that new judge will be able, under the 6th Circuit rules, to review the case and vote on it."
Plainly, this was an attempt to fix the outcome of a case, and the Senate Democrats went along with it. The groups even opposed Professor Michael McConnell's nomination to the Tenth Circuit, even though he would be endorsed by numerous liberal lawyers and law professors. In September 18, 2002, the Alliance for Justice wrote, in part, the following about McConnell:
"President Bush has nominated ... McConnell to a seat on the [Tenth Circuit] in an attempt to continue to pack the circuit courts with judges prepared to carry out his administration's anti-choice, anti-consumer, anti-civil rights, anti-labor and anti-environment agenda. Through his numerous academic articles, Professor McConnell promotes a jurisprudence of 'originalism,' a method of interpreting the Constitution that calls for analyzing how its framers would have decided an issue at the time that the relevant part of the Constitution was adopted. If confirmed to a lifetime seat on the federal appellate bench, Professor McConnell would be in a position to apply his academic theories, as well as the extremist ideas he propounds in non-academic publications, to further roll back protections for well-established Constitutional rights, including civil rights and reproductive freedoms."
Here we have the Left's litmus test. Either the president's nominees embrace the full agenda of the Left and are willing to impose it by judicial fiat (which they now label "mainstream conservatism") or they're labeled right-wing extremists. In short, highly qualified nominees who actually believe in interpreting and upholding the Constitution must be stopped at all costs — including through the continuation of unconstitutional filibusters if need be.
The memoranda contain much more information exposing the sinister strategies of the Left, including leading Senate Democrats. They put to rest any suggestion that these individuals and groups are serious about working with the president or honestly considering any non-activist for our top courts (especially the Supreme Court) despite their best recent efforts to give a public appearance of accommodation and evenhandedness. They're well worth reading, even as the mainstream media chooses to ignore them. (The memoranda are printed in my book's Appendix, if you can't find them elsewhere.)
We conservatives didn't pick this fight, but we must win it. It began with the assault on Bob Bork, and too many sat passively while it happened. Meanwhile, President Clinton's activist nominees, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, both sailed through the confirmation process. They weren't smeared. Their video-rental records weren't combed through. Their trash cans weren't searched. Witnesses weren't called to testify with phony stories about pubic hair on coke cans.
But now is the time to put an end to this. Thanks to the Left and its insistence on judicial supremacy, the constitutional, economic, cultural, and political stakes are too high to ignore. No more stealth candidates like David Souter, or compromise candidates like Anthony Kennedy, or p.c. candidates like Sandra Day O'Connor in hopes of quieting the Left's opposition. And if the president nominates originalists to this and any other upcoming Court openings, as he assured the public repeatedly he would do, his nominees deserve our complete and active support. And they will have it.
— Mark R. Levin is author of the bestselling Men In Black, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and a radio talk-show host on WABC in New York.
http://www.nationalreview.com/levin/levin200507050818.asp
I disagree that they will succeed in blocking the President's nominations to the Supreme Court. There are only a few, but more than enough, of Democrat Senators who are running for reelection in 2006. They don't want to be on the wrong side of two particular issues, the eminent domain case from New London, and the anti-Ten Amendments case from Kentucky.
So, those few Democrats, and even the missing-in-action Republican squishes like Lincoln Chafee who fear the wrong side of those issues, will be enough to kill a filibuster. Crooked as he is, Minority Leader Reid can see the handwriting on the wall, so he has pointedly NOT threatened a filibuster on the Supreme Court.
Congressman Billybob
Mr. Levin you have this annoying habit of consistently hitting home runs :)
THANK YOU!
BUMP
When they win the White House they can nominate whoever they want. In the meantime . . . SHUT UP!
Time for the Preston Brooks solution?
Mark Levin, 'The Great One'. He really does a great job on this issue. His book 'Men In Black' was great.
Bump
Saw Sens Ted Kennedy and Spector together Sunday on 'This Week' defaming Judge Bork. They both agreed that if we followed the constitution we would go back to back alley butchers and segregated lunch lines and women not being able to vote. At the same time they claimed the constitution as being the biggest threat to this nation, Kennedy claimed it is critical for him to protect the 'hard earned' constitutional rights like abortion that are 'settled law'. Ted: Amending the constitution would be hard earned, not just smearing conservatives to get the rulings you want to ignore the constitution.
Mark Levin ping.
I read Levin's book also,he's one of my favorites! ;)
The "groups" get their money/funding from liberal wackos who want them keep the babies dying no matter what else happens. If the groups don't go the mattresses on this appointment then they won't get their donations.
Mark Levin *ping*
Bush will not get a nominee through, it will not happen, the liberals wont let it happen, the conservatives believe only in their jobs not the cause, all is lost, mark my words.
When W gets his nominees through,will you be pleasantly surprised,or just surprised?
In Washington matters, I am a student of subtlety.
Congressman Billybob
I got as far as "Mark Levin" when I realized this entire article is probably dead-wrong.
And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I [am] the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them. Ezekiel 25:17
Yeah? Maybe we'd go back to the Dredd Scott decision and the Runaway Slave Act. They always twist it to suit their evil intentions don't they.
They also say they are NOT filibustering Bolton. They just aren't allowing cloture.
No, instead he submits his list of 4 & waits. If anyone that isn't on his list is nominated he'll have more to say than just how deeply saddened he is, by the President's failure to try to work with the minority party.
I know the Democrats can't be trusted to fulfill their end of the compromise. Are the Republicans going to ban the filibuster on judicial nominations by opting for the nuclear option?
I think they have to, if they want to maintain any credibility as a national party.
I hope so. I'm getting a bit tired of so much niceties.
Yeah -- because yer a tough girl, eh? LOL.
You should look at my muscles, lol
I dunno -- I'm kinda scared of you! ;-)
Man, the story of my life.
Could ya tell JR that he left my favorite choice out of the most recent poll about replacing the Cheif Justice when he retires? The most sinister strategy for frustrating the Left's plan is to knock 'em clear off balance with ZELL MILLER!!!
Oh, don't say that! LOL.
And after Mark wrote that he said, "now get off the phone you big dope"!
And since our victorious Senators will just sit there and let it happen over and over again, WE MUST DO SOMETHING THE NEXT 3 OR 4 TIMES!!!
Those are NOT leaders up there in the Senate. They are followers and WE must lead them to do right things!!!
Ping
Beyond the push for late summer hearings, Republicans say they will try to limit the access senators would have to F.B.I. documents on the potential nominee - the unpredictable wild card in any judicial confirmation because even the White House cannot fully anticipate the outcome of the background investigation when the president makes his choice. They cite as precedent an agreement reached in 1992 between the first Bush White House and a Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Democrats say that, because of the special significance of the Supreme Court, every senator, or at least the party leaders, needs a chance to review the full F.B.I. report to make a fully informed vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04supreme.html?ei=5065&en=c461ab5bf84f9491&ex=1121140800&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
I believe the American public needs a chance to review the FBI files on each and every US Senator in order to make a fully informed vote too.
If you have not read 'Men in Black', it will give you ammo against the left. Mark cites various cases, and the effects of the world of today. It is really kind of scary.
Mr. Gray was on Fox, and hinted that Bolton 'might' be a recess appointment. If so, that would have to be done during the August recess. That might be an 'in your face' for the upcoming judicial fight.
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.