Posted on 07/05/2005 2:23:57 PM PDT by conservativecorner
In an earlier post, I analyzed Senator Biden's latest attempt to set new guideposts for Supreme Court nominees, and effort intended to preclude the confirmation of someone who dislikes the judicial activism Biden prefers. Fortunately, this was merely an academic excerise, since Biden's views probably are not relevant to the confirmation process.
Biden and his fellow liberal Democrats are relevant only to the extent that they can muster enough votes to avoid cloture when they filibuster, and then muster enough votes (51) to defeat a rule change that would end the filibuster. But in doing the bidding of ultra-liberal special interest group leaders like Nan Aron, Ralph Neas, and Elaine Jones for more than 4 years, Senator Biden and his liberal colleagues have probably lost their ability to accomplish these feats. (For a discussion of the control exercised by these groups, see Mark Levin at NRO, and Michael Barone at Real Clear Politics). The unreasonableness of the special interest group demands with respect to appellate nominees, coupled with Majority Leader Frist's willingness to play hard ball, placed too much pressure on red state Democrats like Mary Landrieu and Ben Nelson, and on Joe Lieberman, a man of principle. Thus, seven Democrats struck a deal in connection with Owen, Brown, Pryor, etc, under which the liberal Democrats lost control. Now, control resides either with the gang of 14 or (if Senator Graham and a few other Republican deal makers were speaking accurately about what they will do if the Democrats in the gang act unreasonbly) with that small group of Republican Senators within the gang.
Accordingly, if Lindsey Graham or Mike DeWine writes an op-ed piece about the type of person the president should nominate, we will want to take it seriously. If Joe Lieberman or Ben Nelson writes one, we should at least mull it over. But anything the likes of Joe Biden or Ted Kennedy contributes is basically blog-fodder. And don't expect Senators Graham or DeWine to proclaim that the president must nominate a philosophically "impartial" individual.
The earlier post:
Biden rules
Senator Joe Biden contends that President Bush should pick "a nominee who unites." Biden's resort to this locution illustrates how far off the rails the Democrats have taken this process. It has never been the role of a judicial nominee (or a judge) to "unite" the country. Judges are supposed to decide cases on their legal merits. I doubt that one could find any statement that praises a prior Supreme Court nominee on the theory that he or she would unite us, or that praises a president for uniting us through his judicial appointments. For example, it's unlikely that anyone claimed that Justice Ginsburg would unite us, and such a claim would have been false. It's only in the context of the Democrats' vision of the Court as a group of unelected politicians that it's quest for "uniters not dividers" (a political concept) might make sense.
Biden says that about 20 percent of those nominated by presidents for the Supreme Court "were prevented" from becoming Justices. But none has ever been prevented from taking office due to a filibuster. (The only filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee was bi-partisan, lasted for four days, and involved corruption issues). So Biden's claim that blocking Bush's nominee is consistent with Senate practice is nonsense.
Equally fatuous is Biden's contention that the nominee must be "independent and impartial." If Biden means that the nominee must not have a personal interest that would affect his or her decisions, his statement is trivial. There is no reason to think that Bush will send up a nominee who, Fortas-like, is personally compromised (although, as Ed Whelan has noted, Alberto Gonzales would be barred by virtue of being Attorney General, from deciding some important cases in the short-term). If Biden means that the nominee must have no pre-set philosophy of judging, his claim is absurd. All qualified nominees have such a philosophy.
What Biden really means is that the nominee should be impartial between a view of judging that conservatives prefer and a view of judging that liberals prefer, as Justice O'Connor perhaps can be said to have been. This too is nonsense. No presumption has ever existed in favor of a judging style congenial to "moderates." If such a presumption had operated in the past, many of our most distinguished Justices would never have served, nor would Justice Ginsburg be serving now. Thus, in calling for a "uniter" and an "impartial independent," Biden is simulataneously revealing his party's radically misguided view of the Court's role and attempting to change pre-existing judicial selection practices and criteria.
"Accordingly, if Lindsey Graham or Mike DeWine writes an op-ed piece about the type of person the president should nominate, we will want to take it seriously."
Don't forget that Arlen Specter wasn't part of the "Gang of 7", but he's hardly a reliable conservative vote.
My math is that there are 4 liberal RINOs in the "Gang of 7": McCain, Chafee, Collins, and Snowe. Add Specter, and the Dems have 50 votes against a strong conservative. Then it becomes a question of whether Hagel, Voinovich, DeWine, Warner, or Graham decide to break party lines.
biden-biden is a fool to even think of being the rat nominee let alone the president of anything but a social club.
I'm curious...
Senator Biden ran for the Dem Presidential nomination in 1988, and it looks like he's planning to give it a shot in 2008. Has anyone ever been elected President, or even received a major party nomination, 20 years (!) after his first attempt?
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.