Posted on 10/06/2005 11:21:55 AM PDT by wcdukenfield
October 06, 2005, 1:49 p.m.
A liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
I am hearing two primary arguments for Harriet Miers by those who are close to the president:
1. The president knows her, believes she is the best candidate, and we should trust him because his past judicial picks have been excellent; and
2. There are not enough Republican votes in the Senate to win an ideological fight over a nominee like Michael Luttig, Edith Jones, or Janice Rogers Brown.
I and others have already addressed the first point at some length over the last several days. As I wrote Monday morning in Benchmemos:
The president and his advisors missed a truly historic opportunity to communicate with the American people about their government, the role of all three branches of the federal system, and the proper function of the judiciary. More importantly, they have failed to help the nation return to the equipoise of our constitutional system. And the current justices whose arrogance knows no bounds will be emboldened by this selection. They will see it as affirmation of their “extra-constitutionalism.” The president flinched. ...
Unfortunately, no new information has been presented to change my view.
But the second argument about the impotence of the Senate Republicans is worth some discussion, too. The fact is that this Gang of 14 moderates, led by Senator John McCain, did make it much more difficult for the president to win an ideological battle over a Supreme Court nominee. The Democrats did, in fact, send warnings that they were prepared to filibuster the second nominee. And under such circumstances, the president would have needed 60 votes to confirm his candidate, not 51.
Lest we forget, Majority Leader Bill Frist and the overwhelming majority of his Republican colleagues were poised to defeat the unprecedented and frequently used (or threatened) filibuster tactics that had been unleashed against President Bush by the Democrats to weaken his appointment power. The big media editorialized against it. George Will wrote at length (albeit unpersuasively) against it (see here and my response to him here). And Bill Kristol's favorite presidential candidate in 2000, John McCain, the leader of the Gang of 14, was all over the media making clear he would torpedo such an effort. And that's exactly what he did. This in no way excuses the president's blunder in choosing Miers. But the ideological confrontation with the likes of Senator Charles Schumer and the Democrat left that many of us believe is essential, including Will and Kristol, was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose. This president has been poorly served by his Republican "allies" in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
Today the president would have to persuade seven of the most unreliable Republican senators to trigger the so-called nuclear option in order to clear the way for an up-or-down vote for, say, a Luttig. It is not at all certain or even likely that Lincoln Chafee, Olympia Snowe, and/or Susan Collins — the most liberal of the seven — would have voted for the Senate rule change for the purpose of confirming a solid originalist. And it's likely the Democrat leadership would have succeeded in convincing at least some (if not most) of the seven Democrat moderates to oppose a rule change. I have no doubt that this was part of the White House's political calculation. And it's possible the president didn't want to limp into this fight. That's no excuse. But McCain — who wants to be president and has now endorsed Harriet Miers — and his cadre must not escape scrutiny for their blunder.
— Mark R. Levin is author of the best-selling Men In Black, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and a radio talk-show host on WABC in New York.
* * *
BTTT
Mark Levin, too??? Wow, I can just imagine the scurrilous comments the zombies have hurled at him over this. Amazing that Bush wants to totally divorce his electoral base from the views of so many distinguished---and hitherto lauded on this forum---conservative commentators. I don't recall even Clinton being this hysterically sensitive to criticism (and he was admittedly pretty much neurotically sensitive).
I can't understand, if Levin believes this of McCain and the gang, what he wanted Bush to do. What would it serve to have the type of nominee he had hoped for demeaned and debased by the Democrats followed by a display of Republicans who wouldn't trigger the "nuclear option?"
As for McCain...I made up my mind long ago that I would never vote for him.
Bush's troops are becoming demoralized by this. FIGHTING the Democrats would immensely help in 06 and 08.
There is always somebody who wants to run everybody off the cliff.
McClain sees himself as like Henry Clay, the "Great Compromise" guy. Obviously Clay stopped the Civil War from starting in 1830-40 instead of 1861, but in 1840 the casualty rate would have been much lower and the Constitution preserved. (Railroads.) Sometimes it is better not to put off "civil" war.
Levin makes many excellent points, but the fight should have been fought anyway. I would have nominated Bork or Coulter. Both are well qualified, unlike Quag-Miers.
The fault is with McCain, that jerk Lindsey Graham and the rest as well as with the President who did not exploit his bully pulpit and arouse the country against the filibuster concept and intimidate the Senate into good behavior.
Now we have a nominee who is a cipher, who moves the national debate not one centimeter toward a proper understanding of judicial review. At best, we get lucky and get a reliable vote. But we set no standard against which a democrat president will have to contend.
Hear, hear.
Nice to hear a rational argument.
bttt just for McLame
Being that the "Gang of 14" already concluded that Janice Rogers Brown was acceptable, I believe Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and John Warner all would vote in favor of a Senate rules change if their Democratic counterparts broke with the Gang and joined a filibuster.
McCain will never win the primary, this will and should be placed at his feet, as well as Lindsey "Twinkle-in-his-eyes" Graham.
As for McCain...I made up my mind long ago that I would never vote for him.
me either, he might list himself as repub, but he is nothing more than an agent for the left
We can only hope. I also think Giuliani is an idiot for not running and definately winning the NY governors seat and instead thinking he can run for Prez or be a VP on a McLame Giuliani ticket.
I believe, as I think Mark does, that it is high time that Bush and staunch Republicans put their mark in the sand. They need to take a stand, which up to now they have not and have let the demorats run the show. It's high time that the Republicans fight back in the interests of conservativism. If they don't, what is the sense in having two parties.
...was made much more difficult thanks to the likes of McCain and the unwillingness to change the rule before any Supreme Court vacancy arose. This president has been poorly served by his Republican "allies" in this regard. Bush is the first president who has had to deal with an assault of this kind on his constitutional authority. And unless and until the filibuster rule is changed, a liberal minority in the Senate will have the upper hand.
-----
Exactly. This is why it can be said, without error, that the Senate Repubs have done a terrible job of controlling the radical leftist (AND MODERATE) enemy in the Senate. Also another reason why the RINOs need to be cleaned out and STRONG, FIGHTING, CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP restored to the Repub party. We are paying a big price for the lack of same.
Strategically, it would have been useful to flush the Gang of 14 out. If McCain has any POTUS aspirations, he would've voted for Luttig. I'd like to see the delicate Senator Graham vote down Luttig-- that'd went over like General Sherman Day in South Carolina. And Mark Pryor (D, Arkansas), Landrieu who lost her base, Bobby Byrd (even without a Capito challenge), Bill Nelson and Senator Warner (R,VA) would have had a helluva time voting against a brilliant Virginian-- especially if doing so made them look like soft on crime Pinkos.
I think he's precisely wrong. McCain would have no choice but to vote nuclear in a nomination fight. The guy has to win a few primaries if he wants to be president.
McCain will go nowhere in 2008. His campaign is an MSM fabrication that only he thinks is an actual possibility.
Coulter nominated for the Supreme Court.?. What a concept..
LoL.. NOW that would be a fight worth seeing..
Oh the hyperbole from both sides..
Oh the lovely beautiful sound bites..
Oh the repartee with the Senate democrats. Ann would murderize them..
(Dreamin) *sigh*..
That might me even make me entertain Bush as a conservative even though I know hes isn't..
It would take balls as big as Janet Renos to pull that off..
Frist has the votes for some Circuit Court nominations. Graham and DeWine are on record, naming names of judges that Reid would filibuster, that they would vote for the nuclear option.
Giuliani never intended to run with McCain, but with a conservative (likely a social conservative.) I am convinced that he will be on the ticket as either the P or VP, with someone like a Pence or Pawlenty or Allen(but he's really fading, though not as fast as Santorum, and IMHO not Presidential material.) And frankly, a Giuliani+conservative ticket is the only one likely to win, given all the dynamics. It would hold all the southern states and win at least NY, and probably NJ, to offset the likely loss of OH and possibly NV or CO (CA diaspora infections.)
The burden of proof would have been on them to indicate why the nominee did not deserve to be seated on the Court. Now the burden of proof is on the Administration to indicate why the nominee deserves to be seated on the Court -- other than the basic lines we've been fed so far.
If Bush Jr. doesn't have the guts to take on the likes of Schmucky Schumer, Kennedy and Feinswine now, then when, exactly?
Are buttwipes like them going to remain unchallenged and unrefuted until the day they die in their chairs?
Or is Bush Jr. waiting for something important to challenge them?
Gee I thought the Roberts hearings were very enlightening in that regard.
That's not what you want, you want the bloody fight, admit it. LOL.
Now we have a nominee who is a cipher
Could we at least hear from her before we judge her, that would seem fair to me?
They concluded she was qualified for the position she got, nothing further.
No!!
Let's judge her quick, fast, and brutally.
Yes. The current state of the matter. The nuclear option is again armed, depending on what constitutes "exceptional circumstances."
In this chess game, the GOP should bring out Boyle and Myers (they are presently on the Senate's executoive calendar) for a vote. Now is a great time to confirm them. Then hustle to get Haynes, Kavanaugh and Saad out of committee, and do the same.
Maybe all of them would be voted on, up or down, without the abuse of cloture; or if the DEMs dared to filibuster, the nuclear option would be "easier" in the context of a Circuit Court nomination than a SCOTUS nomination.
The Senate won't do it. Chicken, if you ask me.
The right nominee chosen by Bush plus the bully pulpit actively used by Bush plus a strong leadership role by Frist....
The gang of 14 would have folded like a fancy silk suit.
JMHO...I guess its something we'll never know for sure.
McCain's BlunderSSSSS
It's plural, varied, and would take most of FRs available bandwidth, but if you are going to discuss things, you should try to do so correctly.
Excuse me if I think you've already done that.
Ah, I was joking.
I haven't judged her at all; I'm saying let's wait and see. And I've said that from the first.
Essentially, that's what Bush is doing. It's NECESSARY to fight now... it was BEST to fight the Friday before that spineless gang-of-7 made their deal with the devil.
Sort of off-topic I know, but I am not sure that a Civil War in 1840 would have worked out any better for the South; in fact I think it would have been a more dramatic defeat. The rail network in the North was much smaller in 1840, but there was a network; the South reall didn't get into the rail and industrialization business until the mid 1840s. So you would have had a weaker but still numerically and industrially stronger North facing a South with comparitvely less population and industry than they had in 1860 compared to the North.
Of course, none of that stopped my local wargaming group from using that very scenario as the background for six miniature wargame tournament sessions back about 10 years ago. Wars are very entertaining in 25mm scale; much less pain and bloodshed all around.
The burden of proof would have been on them to indicate why the nominee did not deserve to be seated on the Court. Now the burden of proof is on the Administration to indicate why the nominee deserves to be seated on the Court -- other than the basic lines we've been fed so far.
I haven't judged her at all; I'm saying let's wait and see. And I've said that from the first.
In that case I'm not surprised we're on the same page. A sarcasm tag might be helpful from time to time, LOL. {:>)
"Coulter is now qualified? Let's not go too far with this. She's only slightly more qualified than Miers - only on account of her going to a more prestigious school. Let's not go crazy with this!"
Coulter is not only more qualified, but has a paper trail! We know what we get with her!
I am old enough to remember billboards urging, "impeach Earl Warren." That is a half century ago. Conservatives have been wandering in jurisprudential outer-darkness for that long. Yet,despite more than forty years in the wilderness, I have not prejudged. I have posted that I did not know how to react to the appointment apart from preliminary judgments concerning procedure which are not premature.
Whatever the motivations to appoint Miss Miers, surely she is not anointed our champion to fight our corner as was Brandeis or Frankfurter. As the admiral said so modestly of himself at the debate, "Who am I, why am I here?"
Who is she, why is she here? Can we not do better? Should we have at least tried?
Name calling Miers does nothing to elevate the discussion. Miers is very well qualified to serve on the Court and she is pro-life also. Better than that, she most probably can get confirmed. This is not the case with the other "notables" who you seem to want to be sacrificed al la Robert Bork
Coulter is NOT "slightly" more qualified than Miers. Where is your mind. Coulter could not keep her mouth shut if she was on the SC
Noted.
If true, it is even MORE of a reason to have a confirmation battle over a known originalist. Conservatives need to know which Republican Senators are willing to fight for known originalist judges and which ones aren't. Those that aren't willing to fight for such justices need to be targeted and eliminated.
Should Miers not end up being a female Scalia, it is imperative that Republicans in the gang of 14 be targeted and eliminated along with George Voinovich and any other RINO unwilling to fight for such justices.
No, fighting and eliminating RINOs should be the top priority for 2006 and 2008.
Hey I wanted the fight too, when low and behold up popped the RINOS to sell out the nomination process for the comity of their precious senate.
If you count the RINOS it's obvious to see that there could easily be a "borking party".
That would probably set conservative judges back forever. They would no longer even be considered for the SC. Remember just how easy it is for the MSM to assist the DUmmies in destroying people.
We watched them do this the Pickering nomination over a just decision in a cross burning case.
The good judge did the right thing BUT it was allowed to stand in the general public that he was somehow a racist.
The left wing hate groups will lift any single sentence out of someone record and use it to create the lies that their MSM pals will repeat ad infinitum.
They have this approach pre-prepared on every conservative judge there is, ready to roll out the hit squads.
At least Bush threw them another curveball. He is the President, I'm thinking Miers might be a Trogan Horse that the DUmmies will forever hate. I really think that's W's goal, don't you?
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.