Posted on 06/24/2005 4:50:47 PM PDT by CHARLITE
The days of the judicial-filibuster compromise are numbered.
The scuttlebutt on Capitol Hill these days is that the McCain compromise will vanish as soon as a Supreme Court nomination appears.
That's because the so-called compromise has that one huge loophole: It allows Democrats to filibuster (and thereby block an up-or-down vote on) any nominee they define as an "extraordinary" circumstance.
And if Democrats' recent behavior is any indication, "extraordinary" will be used as a ruse for discriminating against judges who give even the slightest hint of holding pro-life views or having faith in God.
"Any agreement that opens filibusters to individual interpretation of what 'extraordinary' is—especially when 'extraordinary' in the past has been defined by Justices Miguel Estrada . . . Pricilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown—is something that I will be very suspect of," Majority Leader Bill Frist told Citizen during a private interview.
"It's like having a large barn door through which you could drive either a very small carriage . . . or a tractor-trailer."
Many senators are betting on the tractor-trailer.
"I can imagine them defining anybody going onto the Supreme Court as an 'extraordinary circumstance,' " Sen. George Allen, R-Va., told Citizen. "Ultimately, we're going to have to push the constitutional option."
That option, which was stopped short by the Senate compromise deal, would change Senate rules to force a fair, up-or-down vote on all court nominees.
Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., shared a similar view. If "you don't rule with the Roe v. Wade crowd strictly and abortion-on-demand at any time during pregnancy, you are in big trouble if you are being nominated for a judge up here," he said.
As if to illustrate his point, less than one hour after the so-called compromise, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., claimed that Brown—a conservative black judge who was recently confirmed to the powerful D.C. Appeals Court—was "so far out of the mainstream that she will hurt the American people." Brown's crime? She opposed the overturning of a state parental-consent law.
"One of the good things we did in this debate by spelling out (Brown's) outrageous record is to make the case that this is not one that ought to be sent up to the Supreme Court," Boxer told reporters.
Her shrill comments reveal the real strategy behind all the bluster: Democrats want to intimidate other senators into blocking true conservatives and nominating a squishy moderate once a seat on the Supreme Court opens up.
"I think they've shown over the years that if they're really tough on nominees, then presidents have to nominate folks like Anthony Kennedy or guys like Souter who are somewhat blank slates," Santorum told Citizen. "That's what they are hoping for, that they can get more nominees like that instead of the Scalias and the Thomases who have been very, very clear about their ideology and have strong convictions."
TAKE ACTION Contact your senators and let them know you want the president's judicial nominees, including any future nominees to the Supreme Court, to receive an up-or-down vote by the full Senate. You can find contact information in the CitizenLink Action Center.
http://www.family.org/cforum/action_center.cfm?capwizurl=http://www3.capwiz.com/fof/dbq/officials/
Earlier reports were that Collins, Warner, DeWine, and Graham would vote to go nuclear if the Democrats renege on the "agreement." So, the Dems are really the ones who will decide if the button is pushed.
I'm not so sure they'll play that card. Filibustering a Supreme Court nominee will be an order of magnitude more visible than the earlier appointments. They'll only do it if they focus-group it and find out that they won't get the public riled, and I'm guessing that they'll find out that the public won't be all that sympathetic.
The Dems are already telegraphing their strategy for the person to replace Rehnquist. There was an article posted yesterday by AP which basically took that tone that Scalia is just too mean to be effective to be Chief Justice. Hey, if it worked for Bolton, why not try it on Scalia? And of course, Thomas will be just too ethically compromised by the Anita Hill accusations. They might tolerate O'Connor, simply because she's so loopy any more that she votes with them half the time anyway.
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.