A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics
|
|
|
A Weblog of Centrist Voices in American Politics | |
|
June 29, 2005Justice Graham?Ron at Politics 1 reports: US Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has some suggestions for President Bush if he wants easy confirmation of his future nominee for an expected US Supreme Court vacancy. Reid said the key to winning an easy confirmation fight is select a conservative Republican US Senator who would draw broad consensus support. Specifically, Reid said that US Senators Mel Martinez (R-FL), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Mike Crapo (R-ID) were all "bright" and "would be outstanding Supreme Court members." All four come from states with GOP Governors, meaning that anyone selected to replace them in the Senate would also be Republican. I love the idea of appointing Lindsey Graham to the Supreme Court. He's young, intelligent, conservative enough for Bush, but independent minded enough to be a fair judge. Conservatives may grumble about Graham's membership in the "gang of 14", but will remember his roll in the Clinton impeachment trial. By golly, Reid may be on to something. I have also long suggested that Senator Orrin Hatch and/or former Senator John Danforth would be excellent choices; however, their age may disqualify them from consideration. Posted by Mathew at June 29, 2005 01:10 PMComments
I don't disagree with the notion. However, I have to say that I expected this, that democrats would start floating honeymoon candidates. It's a smart preemptive move to get out names that the GOP would have a hard time rejecting. This sets the GOP up to look divisive if they insist on trying to appoint a dream originalist, and it makes the democrats look reasonable. Nicely played. GOP loyalists may be bound to stick to their guns and complain that its not the Senates role to suggest, only to advise and consent upon the Presidential prerogative. that'll make 'em look small-minded and petty though. Posted by: bk at June 29, 2005 01:28 PMHatch supported Breyer. One strike and you're out. I'll think more on this later, but I had to get that out of my system. ;) Posted by: Simon at June 29, 2005 01:31 PMBrian, Good points... Simon, Yup, he did, along with 86 other U.S. Senators... Only 9 voted against him. Posted by: Mathew at June 29, 2005 01:37 PMThere was a story about Hatch somewhere yesterday. I’ll see if I can find it. Hatch believed that the president’s selections for the courts should be respected unless there was a constitutional reason to reject them. He voted for liberal judges that he disagreed with politically for this reason. Posted by: Alf at June 29, 2005 02:01 PMHow surprised would we all be if Bush actually picked a non-divisive justice? And how disappointed would all the partisan groups (right and left) be if this didn't turn into the brawl everyone expects? What would they do with all the money they raised? Posted by: Alan at June 29, 2005 02:23 PMSimon, would we be wrong to think we can already predict you views on such nominees? In other words, isn't you view, upon further reflection and research, going to be that any of the nominees who are not originalists are bad nominees, and any which are would be fantastic nominees. I mean, Graham, jeez, he's a known compromiser. He's bound to be no better than reticent as regards living constitutionalism. isn't that just paving the road to hell with good intentions, only at a more gentle grade than Kennedy? Posted by: bk at June 29, 2005 02:23 PMBrian, Regarding Sen. Hatch, my understanding (this is mainly predicated on Martin Garbus' book Courting Disaster, which is among the silliest books I've ever read, but the section I'm referring to seems supportable) is that Sen. Hatch did more than just vote for Justice Breyer, he actively supported him prior to his nomination. Indeed, apparently, he campaigned for Breyer when Clinton rejected Breyer in favor of Justice Ginsberg. For the record, I should say that in every regard but one, I hugely like Jestice Breyer; in writing and in speaking, he seems hugely intelligent, warm, friendly and witty. I have no personal animus towards him at all. I just completely disagree with him over what the Constitution is and thus, what the Supreme Court should do. If we were to write a new constitution, I would want Stephen Breyer at that convention. If we were to institute a system in which the Supreme Court would, as Brian I think desires, act as a council of platonic guardians, a permanent constitutional convention charged with ensuring that the law is kept in comport with the best aspirations of society, I would likely want Justice Breyer to be one of those grand platonic guardians. But neither of those were the tasks of the body to which Justice Breyer was appointed eleven years ago, although you wouldn't always know it from his Opinions. Therefore, I must - very, very respectfully - dissent, and say that, while I believe that in every regard but one, Justice Breyer is the sort of chap who would be a good fit for the court, I do not believe that, the Supreme Court being what it is, and Justice Breyer holding the views he does - he should be a member of that bench, unless he is willing to undergo a conversion on the road to damascus. Posted by: Simon at June 29, 2005 02:52 PMI'm suprised at some of Reid's choices. To be honest, I can't quite figure all of them out. Mel Martinez? He's an intellectual lightweight! Maybe this is the "Thank You" for handing the Schiavo Memo to the Democrats. I mean, the guy doesn't even know what he's carrying around in his suit pocket and we want to put him on the Supreme Court? Sure, he was an attorney. He was a trial lawyer whose firm sued the First Baptist Church of Orlando for an individual who tripped on the steps. This qualifies him for the court? Incidentally, Martinez was also the third most unpopular Senator in the US in the most recent polls. Not sure how this kind of popularity would help him in a confirmation battle. If Senator Reid wants to start naming justices, he really ought to run for President. Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2005 03:29 PMHmmmmmm. I confess, I know precious little about Senator Reid. He was all but unknown underneath Senator Daschele, yet, I have very much liked what I've seen thus far. Just why isn't he a contender for the presidency, anyway? Posted by: Ryan at June 29, 2005 03:41 PMRyan, He's probably too much of the "soft-spoken" type to be President. More along the Jimmy Carter lines...just doesn't thrill people. Another huge hurdle that Mitt Romney will also face--he's a Mormon. I'm just not sure that this country will elect a Mormon to the Presidency. Many Americans, including a huge number of Evangelicals hold to the belief that Mormonism is a cult and I wouldn't underestimate the power of religion in American politics. I'm not saying someone has to be a Protestant to be President, but look at the statistics. One Catholic President. That's it. Posted by: AR at June 29, 2005 04:13 PMplatonic guardians As opposed to aristotelian slaves? :-) Simon, here's the thing. I don't think justices should be free to rule entirely as they wish, I just think they should have some wiggle room. But honestly, my sense is that you DO think the judges should be slaves to the constitution. Any time you mention "capaciousness" or "interpretation," it's within the context of instances where, in your opinion, the meaning of the constitution is patently obvious. I agree that in some instances this is true. But not all. It's astounding to me that are entirely to unwilling to acknowledge occasions of vaguesness without then immediately finding a way to dismiss them or explain them away. Posted by: bk at June 29, 2005 04:22 PMIf Senator Reid wants to start naming justices, he really ought to run for President. How did you feel a few years back, Pat, when Orrin Hatch gave Clinton some names to think about for the Supreme Court, and Clinton actually took his advice? Is bipartisan input really that ugly a prospect? One of the names Reid mentioned was Sen. DeWine, who represents us here in Ohio -- a very good and principled man. I recognize that judicial experience and legal scholarship should also be considered, but something tells me DeWine would be far above average in serving the nation on the high court, if given the chance. Posted by: William Swann at June 29, 2005 04:30 PMTwo things. First, "And how disappointed would all the partisan groups (right and left) be if this didn't turn into the brawl everyone expects?" Second, Hatch is over 70 years old. Good luck. The WH seems set to appoint only those under 60 and with good reason. Posted by: doverspa at June 29, 2005 05:01 PMWilliam, I just don't see a lot of actual good will coming from Senator Reid, so I don't really trust him very much. More to the point, I never had the chance to vote for him. I did have a chance to vote for President, and for my own state's Senators. I didn't vote for George Bush for President so that he would do the bidding of the losing party. As for Bill Clinton heeding Orrin Hatch's recommendation, well I don't know if I agree with that, either. At any rate, Hatch's objections to, for instance, naming Bruce Babbitt were hardly based on ideological grounds, as the appointments he urged, Breyer or Ginsberg, were certainly plenty liberal (Ginsberg especially). Senator Reid, on the other hand, seems to be making recommendations on ideological grounds, not the character of other potential nominees. Senator Reid and the Democratic party start from a presumption of needing to maintain the status quo of Roe v. Wade and the general principles of interpretation which let to Roper and to the abyssmal Kelo decision on property takings last week. A "middle ground" concedes the status quo. I think the status quo is wrong, I think I never got a chance to vote on the status quo, and I want to see it changed. Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2005 05:28 PMFirst, I warmly welcome Senator Reid making public recommendations to the president. Indeed, I advised Senate Democrats do something very much like what Senator Reid did right here at Centerfield in December in my post Advice and Consent for Senate Democrats. Second, to PatHMV and others who disapprove of Senators offering advice to presidents, let's do remember the Senate's constitutional role is not merely to consent, but to advise, on nominees. Senator Reid need not be president to recommend nominees; he need only be a Senator. And he is. Posted by: The Jaded JD at June 29, 2005 05:52 PMI'm willing to compromise... why don't we let a straight majority vote of the Senate advise the President who to appoint. Deal? Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2005 06:07 PMOkay. Lets think about that. Who gets to nominate who the Senate votes for to advise the President to nominate, every Senator? The Senate Majority and Minority Leaders? That brings us back to Senator Reid's suggestions, and as Senators themselves, and Republicans on top of that, I imagine they would easily get approved by a vote in the Senate floor. So now we've got a list of names that could, and for all intents and purposes *have* won confirmation in the Senate -a second vote would be kinda redundant, wouldn't it?-. And that list goes to the President. He's in a tough bind now. If he nominates someone NOT on the list, he risks angering the every Senator that voted for that list, and the American people, who believe he's just playing partisan politics... It gets complicated, huh? What about a committee? Y'know... some sort of committee of Senators that dealt with things Judicial.. what would one call such a committee.... HMmmmmmmmmmm.... Posted by: Ryan at June 29, 2005 06:22 PMeveryone noticed the heavy sarcasm in that last remark, right??? Posted by: Ryan at June 29, 2005 06:23 PMLast night the President had a chance to move the country forward by laying out a specific course of action to make our troops safer and rescue the mission in Iraq. Instead, the President took us backwards -- backwards to campaign style rhetoric and unshakeable stubbornness. Let me be clear about something. I've never met an American who doesn't want to see America succeed in Iraq. I've never met a veteran who doesn't fly the flag on the 4th of July with pride in our country. I've never met an American who doesn't believe in the greatness of our country and the strength of our ideals. But I've met a lot of Americans who fear the President has no plan to get it right in Iraq -- and they woke up this morning feeling the same way. The President and the administration need to get their story straight about what is happening in Iraq -- and how they are going to get our mission back on track. From their 24th different rationale for war, to the Vice President and Secretary Rumsfeld telling us the insurgency is in its "final throes" while last night President Bush said it is more dangerous than ever, Americans just want to hear the truth. They want leadership equal to our soldiers' sacrifice, and they know we can't win if our leaders can't even agree on the facts. This is a time for leadership, and a time for responsible answers to difficult problems. Yesterday, I laid out a 9 point plan to get it right in Iraq. Here are 3 steps the President can take this weekend to start getting it right in Iraq and ensure greater security for our troops.
2) Send a message across the Middle East that Iraq's neighbor countries must do more to stop the rise of terrorism in Iraq. We need countries like Saudi Arabia to keep their commitment to help pay for reconstruction efforts in Iraq so the Iraqi people get electricity, water and better roads. We also need help from Iraq's neighbors in shoring up the borders so foreign fighters and terrorists can't get in and can't get out. The President needs to take his tough message to the region and enlist support for our mission. The best way to stop the growth of terrorism is by enlisting more Arab allies. 3) Truly honor our troops' sacrifices in Iraq by immediately covering the one billion dollar shortfall in funding for veterans care this year here at home and increasing funding for armor and necessary supplies for our troops over in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senator Byrd, Senator Murray, I and others have an amendment pending right now to address the critical funding shortage for veterans. The administration could send a powerful message about sacrifice and national unity if they act now to address this shortfall for the VA. We need more than just words to get it right in Iraq. We need actions and focus and leadership. We saw what happened after 9/11, in the mountains of Tora Bora, when the administration took its eyes off the ball when it came to hunting down and capturing Osama Bin Laden. We can't afford to let the same thing happen in Iraq. Our troops are depending on us and we can't let them down. It's time to bring the country together to get it right. No more excuses, no more spin, and no more dividing the country on partisan lines. Americans have the resolve - we need action from the administration. Sincerely, John Kerry Posted by: John Kerry at June 29, 2005 06:46 PM1 and 2 are nice and all, but it's the same rhetoric we hear from both sides. With the possible exception of Senator Biden, I've yet to hear anyone explain *how* we're going to get Europe and the rest of the middle east to pony up. Maybe it's in more details in the "9 point plan." 3. Is a very legitimate complaint to have about this administration. I realize we're willing to let poor intelligence slip by with medals of honor, but someone's butt needs to be put to the flames on this. After all, this is going to be another emergency spending bill or rider upon another, which will be a guarentee "yes" vote which means it'll double in size with pork... Posted by: Ryan at June 29, 2005 07:05 PMPat, How about, since the Constitution allows the Senate to create its own rules, we let the Senate decide how many Senators it takes to decide whether or not to decide to consent to a nomination? And advice and consent need not be a single step, so while each Senator may advise, not all Senators need consent. Posted by: The Jaded JD at June 29, 2005 07:11 PMJohn K. and W.: interesting first time visitors. Interesting juxtaposition too. Posted by: c3 at June 29, 2005 07:15 PMOh yes and W... I would bet most "idiots" are f***ing "idiots" except for the celibate ones. The adjective doesn't further enlighten us nor further the discussion. Maybe one of the other echo chambers would be more to your liking. Posted by: c3 at June 29, 2005 07:17 PMJD, No problem. At the start of the next session, Senator Frist, instead of routinely adopting the last session's rules, can ask the majority to adopt a new set of rules. I think I'll ask them to enact rules to require a 3/4 vote to end debate on all bills to raise taxes or welfare benefits, or to impose new environmental quality regulations. Will that work for you? Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2005 07:24 PMHow did you feel a few years back, Pat, when Orrin Hatch gave Clinton some names to think about for the Supreme Court, and Clinton actually took his advice? Wasn't the period you're referring to one of *Republican* majority in the Senate? If Dems had the WH and Senate, for an indeterminate period of time as the Repubs do now, I'm sure they'd do their best to get as many liberals on the federal bench as possible and wouldn't give a darn about Bill Frist's recommendations. Posted by: Scott at June 29, 2005 07:46 PMScott- yeah, and the Republicans would probably hold up those nominations with stalling tactics... keeping them in the judiciary committee.. blue tickets.. etc... Naaahh.. only the Democrats are unethical enough to do that! Posted by: Ryan at June 29, 2005 07:51 PMSenator Reid, on the other hand, seems to be making recommendations on ideological grounds, not the character of other potential nominees. Senator Reid and the Democratic party start from a presumption of needing to maintain the status quo of Roe v. Wade and the general principles of interpretation which let to Roper and to the abyssmal Kelo decision on property takings last week. Really? Graham, DeWine, Martinez, and Crapo are all pro-life. None of them could even be considered "stealth" candidates who lack clear positions on the issue. So the Democratic leader is suggesting candidates who all have strong pro-life records, and who's overall record on the issues should probably be considered fairly conservative. Suppose we did a little research. Do you want to make a gentleman's wager on what the public statements of these four Senators were following the Kelo decision? I'll take the side that says they weren't fans. You don't trust Reid -- nor should any of us, really, trust a politician -- but this particular gesture is kind of interesting. It's an attempt to follow up on the Hatch-Clinton episode. On the whole, it's probably pretty healthy. Posted by: William Swann at June 29, 2005 07:51 PMRyan, Name me one serious Republican who has refused to acknowledge that our party did our share of obstructing back when we were in the MAJORITY during the Clinton administration. When Senator Frist proposed a compromise rule change on the filibuster situation, he included changes which would guarantee a vote on all nominees in the future regardless of which party was in the majority. In other words, his compromise would have taken away the committee chair's power to avoid scheduling a vote, which was the tactic mostt used to delay President Clinton's appointments. Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2005 08:11 PMWilliam, I also don't trust Senator Reid because he has repeatedly distorted (vastly) the records of many of President Bush's judicial nominees. He constantly tries to ressurect the demonstrably false claim that Judge Gonzales criticized Judge Owen's opinion on the parental notification case in Texas, for example. And the character assassination against Judge Pryor has been absolutely despicable. If Senator Reid had ever shown any real desire to be reasonable and participate in real compromise, maybe I would give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. But given, for example, his nasty partisan gloating the day of the compromise made by the Gang of 14, I feel perfectly comfortable rejecting his suggestions out of hand. Those Senators may make fine judges, and if President Bush has some other reason to consider them, fine. But to consider them based on, basically, demands made by the minority leader of the Senate is not a good idea. Moreover, the problem with the judiciary right now is that too many of the justices believe themselves to be super-legislators, making political and policy decisions rather than decisions rooted in the actual Constitution itself. Appointing a very recent politician to the position is not something that I'm inclined to support. Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2005 08:17 PMPat, Your counteroffer is predicated on the assumption that the Senate is not a continuing body but, rather, like the House dissolves at the end of each Congress. That proposition isn't clear from either the Constitution or the Senate rules, and Senate precedent weighs against it. You may feel free, however, to offer that a point of order be raised to invite a definitive ruling on that question, which point of order, naturally, would be subject to an appeal from the ruling of the chair. Posted by: The Jaded JD at June 29, 2005 09:46 PMJD, The continuing nature of the Senate vis a vis its rules is an unsettled issue, I agree. I proposed waiting to avoid the fact that they started this current session in reliance on the existing rules. So will you support my 3/4 requirement to end debate on new taxes if the Republicans can garner 60 seats in the next election? Let those 60 votes impose a supermajority requirement binding on the Senate in the future (for the sake of argument assume we have 60 votes not counting the Chafees of the world)? Naturally, the rule would also require 75 votes to amend that particular rule. Posted by: PatHMV at June 29, 2005 10:17 PMyeah, and the Republicans would probably hold up those nominations with stalling tactics... keeping them in the judiciary committee.. blue tickets.. etc... Naaahh.. only the Democrats are unethical enough to do that! Yep, I don't doubt Republicans would do the same. I just think it's a little bit ridiculous to think Bush would listen to Reid's recommendations while the Dems are in the minority. Posted by: Scott at June 29, 2005 10:37 PMMy argument against the nuclear option (see comments 2005-05-03 was largely predicated on the notion that the Constitution doesn't say how the Senate should advise and consent, and specifically leaves the manner in which that advice and consent should be given to the Senate. I stand by that position now. Thus, notwithstanding any Senate rule to the contrary, I have no objection per se whatsoever to any member of the United States giving the President advice, in whatever context or capacity they deem appropriate. The President is old enough and wise enough to listen to heed that advice or not as his judgement and discretion determine. Posted by: Simon at June 29, 2005 11:15 PMPat, As a Republican, I supported Speaker Gingrich when he proposed requiring 3/5s of the House to pass a bill raising taxes. And, of course, tax bills must originate in that body. Accordingly, I believe that's the better place to add supermajoritarian restrictions on new taxes. I would support a 2/3s majority requirement in both houses to enact a budget not in balance except in a time of declared war. Posted by: The Jaded JD at June 30, 2005 12:08 AMJD, Of course, Speaker Gingrich was proposing an actual constitutional amendment to enact a 2/3 majority. My question was whether you would support a simple rule, enacted by a simple majority of Senators, to bind all future Senate sessions to a supermajority requirement to end debate on bills to raise taxes. Would you care to address the question I have been asking you for several posts now? For myself, I don't believe that a simple majority can bind future legislatures to super-majority requirements, except through the constitutional amendment process. Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2005 12:22 AMPat, when you said the following: If Senator Reid wants to start naming justices, he really ought to run for President, Were you just trying to make me look good for saying GOP loyalists may be bound to stick to their guns and complain that its not the Senate's role to suggest, only to advise and consent upon the Presidential prerogative. That'll make 'em look small-minded and petty though. On your first comment, I though this your clever jokey way of saying "count me as a GOP loyalist." But after your subsequent comments, I'm wondering whether this initial irony was lost on you. Just to be pedantic, I'm going to repeat to everyone my point that regardless of the merits and reasons for Reid's statements, they are a VERY good tactical move, without real downside, IMO. Preemptive strikes against GOP claims that the Dems are being "obstructionist" are extremely wise. I expect the democrats to keep floating names, waiting for one or two to stick to the wall. They are positioning themselves to make the GOP look divisive if they choose to pick someone that can be cast as a hardliner. It's early to attribute well-thought out savvy to Reid in this case, as simpler alternative explanations exist.. . But let's notice that Reid rattled the GOP's cage with the nuke defusing, and now he's done something else smart that looks and sounds pretty good to the moderate majority but is ticking off GOP loyalists. After all, what's really wrong with the democrats stating for the record some players that they'd be willing to confirm? Bush has been repeatedly inclined to act only on the counsel of a small closed set of advisors. Now, that's his prerogative of course. However, the President is NOT entitled to expect that the Democrats should just sit by silently and accept being frozen out on major decisions that affect the nation. Bush and the GOP might prefer this for their own ends, but the democrats actually doing so would be an abdication of their representative responsibilities. What are the odds on the mod 14 playing a big and even decisive role in the nomination and confirmation of a new high court justice? Given that 46 + 14 = 60, and 60 > 51, I'd say even money or better. Posted by: bk at June 30, 2005 09:05 AMIt's early to attribute well-thought out savvy to Reid in this case, as simpler alternative explanations exist.. . But let's notice that Reid rattled the GOP's cage with the nuke defusing, and now he's done something else smart that looks and sounds pretty good to the moderate majority but is ticking off GOP loyalists.My only real objection to this is that Sen. Reid's attempt at triumphalism following the nuclear armistice will specifically undercut the ability of GOP moderates to compromise again. By claiming the armistice as a victory - which it most certainly was not, in my view (see also revised and extended comments here) - for Democrats, Reid contributed to the inflammation of the conservative base against the 7 GOP Senators who made the compromise possible in the first place. By circumscribing their ability to compromise in future - and jeopardizing their chances of re-election - Reid has tipped his hand. I see little indication that Reid wants compromise; he sees more political advantage in undercutting moderate Republicans, and creating a polarized Senate. As Sen. Snowe says, "We live in a time when the campaigning never stops, and the governing all too frequently never begins". Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2005 09:53 AM Brian... what Simon said. Of course, Senator Reid has every right to suggest names. The same right that every member of the blogosphere or any American citizen has. And that sums up how much weight I believe the President should give those suggestions. I know opinions differ, but my read of the political/PR battle was that the GOP was coming out ahead, the Democrats were clearly being revealed as obstructionists. That Senator Reid went on with his obscene crowing about "defeating" the evil GOP at the very moment well-intentioned members of both parties were trying to show the spirit of compromise made Senator Reid look very petty and small. I don't mind the Democrats having a voice. They can scream all they want. I'd rather they didn't distort the record of good people as they have, but it is their first amendment right to do so. But they do not have a right, as the minority party, to obstruct the proceedings and prevent confirmation votes out of fits of pique or irrelevant demands for yet more documents from the administration. The problem is not that Senator Reid and the Democrats want to have a voice. It's that they want to have the deciding voice. Frankly, if they can't convince Lincoln Chafee and 4 or 5 other wavering Republicans that a nominee is all that bad, then they aren't making their case very well, or there just is no case to make. And from a purely pragmatic political standpoint, the Democrats rantings about Judge Brown, Judge Owen, and Judge Pryor have so destroyed their credibility outside their own sphere of influence that the only way they will be able to convince most Americans that a new nominee is extremist is if all 14 of the Gang agree. Remember, if Graham and one other Republican decides a filibuster is inappropriate, then the GOP has the votes to get rid of the filibuster with a rule change. Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2005 11:44 AMBut they do not have a right, as the minority party, to obstruct the proceedings and prevent confirmation votes out of fits of pique or irrelevant demands for yet more documents from the administration.I disagree with this to the extent that they have every right under the Senate rules to do precisely this. As mentioned above, the Senate makes its own rules; the filibuster is perfectly "legal" under those rules, unless and until the Senate agrees to change those rules, by whatever mechanism for changing the rules is provided in the rules. I do agree, however, that they are being foolish by opposing Bolton in this manner. It could almost be a further part of a strategy to undercut the GOP moderates, by allowing the James Dobson / Bill Frist types to say "look! We told you so! You give these guys an inch, they will take a mile; you give them ground on judicial filibusters, and they expand the filibuster to other nominations!". The gang of 14 compromise says, in my view, this much: "Republicans won't use the nuclear option if democrats don't filibuster". By continuing to filibuster nominees, the democrats make it ever more likely that the nuclear trigger will be pulled, and the next time, there will be little or no room for a further compromise. The Democrats don't want compromise any more than Bill Frist did. In my view, Harry Reid's strategy is: polarize the Senate, get rid of the GOP moderates, let them do what they want - because the more ineffectual we look, the more they look like a bullying majority, the more pissed our base will get at the GOP, so the better chances we'll have of being elected next time. The campaigning never stops. Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2005 12:23 PMLet me just point out that Simon and Pat's comments (as self- acknowledged GOP loyalists) are good proof that Reid has really rattled some cages. I really have no idea whether there is in fact a substantial majority that senses Reid's post-compromise behavior as obscene, etc. I know it's the reaction of people who share Simon's and Pat's view. Demeanor aside, I didn't find Reid to be all that far off the mark in calling it a win, because the high level of irritation from some GOP quarters was pretty good confirming evidence, IMO. There was GOP anger at the compromise itself, and then there was the anger at Reid calling it a win. This left me wondering whether the GOP was more angry at the compromise or at Reid declaring victory. I agree that the democrats don't necessarily want compromise,. But it seems to me there's some evidence that they'll take a 3rd of a loaf and smile and call it 51% I'm VERY suspect of the notion (forget which of you expressed it) that Reid is such a liberal tool that the GOP will be able to steamroll through an originalist tool handpicked by the staunchest members of the base. Could your despising on Reid be leading you to wishful thinking? I know there's some spoiling for a Borkish rematch here. Posted by: bk at June 30, 2005 12:42 PMHowever, the President is NOT entitled to expect that the Democrats should just sit by silently and accept being frozen out on major decisions that affect the nation. It's sad to say, Brian, but as long as 50 of the 55 Repubs back nearly whatever measure or justice he sends to the Senate, Bush can expect the Dems to be frozen out of any decision. In addition, it still remains unfortunately a very real possibility that the nuclear option will come up again, possibly in the very near future. Posted by: Scott at June 30, 2005 01:28 PMBrian, I disagree that there's much significance that Reid "rattled" my and Simon's and the rest of the GOP's cages. That people on the other side react with passion does not mean that it was therefore a good idea by Reid. It certainly doesn't mean that he was being centrist with the proposal. As for whether the compromise was a victory for the Democrats, keep in mind that for every RedStater damning the compromise, there was a DUer or a Kossack doing the same thing. It did bear the purported hallmark of a good compromise... everybody hated it. As for my own feelings on the compromise, I do not write it off as a definite loss for judicial restraint (from the legal side) or the GOP (from the political side). If it pans out, if the 7 Democrats live up to their end of the bargain and the 7 Republicans (especially Graham) live up to their commitments, then I think it's a reasonably acceptable deal and will get some accomplished (though I really don't approve of it all that much). Certainly it has delivered some political power to the members of the Gang of 14. Yes, they will be able to influence the selection of the next nominee (one of the reasons, in fact, that I'm not a fan of the deal is that it puts so much power into the hands of such a small group, not elected by the country as a whole... maybe they'll use the power for good, or maybe they'll use it to grandstand and as ammunition in the next presidential primary). So from a purely pragmatic stance, it was worth it to the members of the 14, though naturally they deny possessing any such power-hungry motives. And has anybody else noticed the blantant effort of Reid to curry favor with 2 of the 7 GOP signers of the Deal? Graham and DeWine, who Senator Reid thinks would make just really fine Supreme Court justices just happen to have signed the Deal. Of course, Senator Reid wouldn't be trying to influence their decisions on the Deal with this bit of flattery, would he? Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2005 01:39 PMSimply put, Senator Reid, my mother, and everyone who's halfway literate or watches TV knows that, at the bare minimum, President Bush is going to nominate a Republican, and if true to form, a hardliner. So all Senator Reid has done is to follow the Bush doctrine and "Preemptively" approve some Republicans that the President might consider. It's always the President's choice, but these guys would make it through no problem. I would be more interested, not in whether or not it's some sort of "reward" for being moderate that Senator Reid named them, but rather, in how their individual Senate races might shape up with them out of consideration. Naturally, their governors would appoint a Republican to replace them, but they would hardly have the incumbent power... Name me one serious Republican who has refused to acknowledge that our party did our share of obstructing back when we were in the MAJORITY during the Clinton administration. So you're saying that once you're in the majority, the minority might as well not exist? We do live in a pluralist society, after all, and the beauty of the Senate is that even a minority of one has the power to do the right thing... Posted by: Ryan at June 30, 2005 02:02 PMI'm bound by my comments at the time (linked ante at June 29, 2005 11:15 PM); the nuclear option was flat-out unconstitutional, in my view, and thus any deal which thwarted it was a good deal. As it turned out, I reject the notion that it was a democratic victory, as I discussed ante at June 30, 2005 09:53 AM and in links therefrom). My answer to the substantive question, then, is that I think that McCain has positioned himself as a kingmaker (which, as per the recent Economist profile, isn't necessariliy a good thing for Dems), but only if the Gang of 14 holds up, which I'm not sure it will. Surely, he can count on Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins and Lincoln Chafee, who will likely vote with the Democrats were any Supreme Court nominee I liked hit the floor. But the others - that will depend on exactly the kind of good faith that the other party has shown very little of, by Reid's triumphalist comments, and by the filibustering of the Bolton nomination (don't read that as an endorsement of Bolton, by the way, it isn't). I hope that the gang of 14 does hold together, because as I mentioned (at June 28, 2005 04:48 PM) last week, I don't think everyone on the right wants originalist judges, I think they want activist CONSERVATIVE judges. The knife cuts both ways, and I am as outraged at conservative activism from the bench as I am at liberal activism from the bench. The notion of placing originalist judges on the bench is not a liberal/conservative debate, and it bemuses me that it is thus characterized. It is in EVERYONE's interests that the political debate be conducted in the political arena. Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2005 02:22 PMIncidentally, I should further clarify that the reason Reid's comments rattle my cage is more as a GOP moderate than as a GOP loyalist; I want to preserve a middle ground where mutual interests of moderates in both parties can lead to deals being brokered in the name of good governance. Thus, most democrats don't want to go as far as I do, in the long run, on abortion, but most will agree that measures to reduce abortion could be taken reasonably, and I would rather some movement than no movement. Likewise, Olympia Snowe and I disagree on where abortion is going, but I think we would agree that partial birth abortion is a terrible option, and that provided adequate exception can be made for the life and physical health of the mother, an acceptable law could be fashioned, one that would even pass Casey's (unconstitutional) test. Reid's comments seem to be underlain by a strategy to eviscerate the middle and to polarize Congress, in order to set up a tension between the two parties that can only be shaken up periodically by a sudden, jarring electoral movement. Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2005 02:34 PMInteresting and indeed in some cases admirable sentiments, Simon. I agree that originalism may not be the selfsame thing as conservatism, and am also concerned with over-activism from both wings. But I'm not convinced that originalism shares as much with liberalism as it does conservatism. Originalism's conflation with conservatism is due to substantial overlap, don't you think? As regards your description of Reid, I can' t comment on its accuracy since I have so very litle familiarity with the man. I'll just note that if you excise his name, it would not be hard to fill in the blank with any number of partisans: _______'s comments seem to be underlain by a strategy to eviscerate the middle and to polarize Congress, in order to set up a tension between the two parties that can only be shaken up periodically by a sudden, jarring electoral movement. Really just a question of who's holding the handle and who the blade, eh? Posted by: bk at June 30, 2005 03:12 PMRyan, my point, which you seem to have missed, about the GOP being in the majority when they used the commitee power during the Clinton years was two fold. One, it is certainly more legitimate for the majority to use obstruction or delaying tactics than for the minority to do so. But more to the immediate point is that Senator Frist's proposed compromise acknowledged past GOP abuse of process and proposed steps to prevent them in the future. With that proposal, what happened in the past is pretty immaterial, unless you want to justify current obstructionism by saying "well, you did it to us, now we're going to do it to you". Which is not a very attractive reason for adults to do anything. I don't think that Senator Reid was particularly trying to "reward" Graham and DeWine for being compromisers. My suggestion is that he was trying to flatter them into sympathizing more with him than with their Republican colleagues when the time comes for those two and the rest of the gang to decide whether the Democrats' filibuster (which is coming) on a supreme court nominee constitutes "extreme circumstances" or not. "See, Sen. Graham, I told them I thought you would make a fine justice, but that loser President of yours didn't like you enough to nominate you." Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2005 03:54 PMI think you're right provided you keep using a small "c" on the front of "conservatism". I mean, originalism obviously prefers the status quo, because it locks it in unless and until amendments are passed, and conservatism with a small "c" is generally taken to be a preference of the status quo. But, as noted here (June 30, 2005 11:59 AM, at n1), there are many things in the status quo that Conservatives (note capitalization) aren't entirely happy with. The example given there is that there are aspects of the Constitution's procedural guarantees which strike me as being less than ideal, but they're there, whether I like it or not. I don't think that Justice Scalia is going soft on the death penalty simply because his line of reasoning in Mistretta > Apprendi > Ring > Blakely / Schriro > Booker found that any sentencing factor must be found beyond a doubt by a jury rather than a judge. The originalist Judge should be able to quote at least a few cases where he has ruled strikingly at variance with his policy preferences; I'm not aware that Ginsberg, Souter or Breyer, JJ., could list any such claims. So I'd certainly agree that it is a more conservative theory, I just wouldn't necessarily agree that it is a more Conservative theory. Posted by: Simon at June 30, 2005 03:58 PMBrian, The melding together of originalism and conservatism has come about, in my opinion, because the Left has had less success in achieving its goals through the ballot box in the past 30 years or so. Therefore, it has resorted to the judicial process to seek to accomplish its political ends. This has certainly happened before, the other way. At the turn of the century, the courts invalidated many wage and hour laws and regulations which were aimed at promoting safer and healthier workplace environments. The court at the time sided with business interests and libertarian philosophies to strike them all down under the idea of the freedom of contract; the statutes infringed on the rights of the working man and his employer to freely contract with each other. The business people and libertarians couldn't stop the laws from being enacted in the first place, so they used the courts instead. The courts were wrong then, and they're wrong now. That the court can refuse to enforce acts of Congress or the states on constitutional grounds is a power which is given only inferrentially to begin with. It was 53 years between the first and second times the court declared a statute unconstitutional. Everything done after that is a house of cards, laying one shaky premise on top of another. I believe in the first layer of cards. And maybe even the second. But the 3rd through 10th layers, exhibited in Roper and the other recent cases, are wrong. Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2005 04:03 PMOne, it is certainly more legitimate for the majority to use obstruction or delaying tactics than for the minority to do so. Something is either legitimate, or it's not. I'm not sure you can have degrees of legitimacy. Either the minority party broke Senate rules, or they didn't. And since they didn't, their tactics were no more, or less, legitimate for being in the minority. Had you said it was less ethical... But more to the immediate point is that Senator Frist's proposed compromise acknowledged past GOP abuse of process and proposed steps to prevent them in the future. If you're speaking of the compromise which put a limit upon time of debate, a principle that is a core tradition of the Senate, than I'd hope you would realize how very impotent that offer was. The gentleman from Tennessee was asking the minority to give up a power they already had in favor of that same power, in much limited form. It was easy for Senator Frist to make that offer, being in the majority. I doubt, were the situation reversed, he would have accepted it, or you would have wanted him to. If you're talking about some other compromise, totally ignore my last paragraph. ;-P Posted by: Ryan at June 30, 2005 04:29 PMRyan, I used the word "legitimate" in much more of its sense of "political legitimacy" or "ethical" rather than "legal". I certainly agree that the minority does indeed currently enjoy the power of the filibuster, although I disagree that majorities in past Senates can permanently bind simple majorities of future Senates to supermajority requirements for particular votes. My only point about Senator Frist's compromise was that it specifically addressed and did away with the forms of obstruction previously used by the majority as well as those currently being used by the minority. It basically said, let's get away with all the forms of obstructionism. If you guys win the presidency next time but we still control the Senate, then these new rules we're proposing will require us to grant that president's appointees the same up or down vote we're demanding from you now. Now, if you are in favor of both the majority and the minority being able to obstruct and prevent up or down votes because of the Senate's tradition of unlimited debate, then fine. Myself, I got tired of it when [cheap but valid political sniping on] Senator Byrd used it in an effort to derail the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [/cheap but valid political sniping off]. Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2005 04:52 PMAs I know little of the details of the compromise in question, I shall refrain from making comment, save to say, that while in spirit it sounds like an agreable measure, I have to question any move which limits the power of the minority of the Senate. Simply put, as we all well know, the Senate is NOT the House, nor was it meant to be the bastion of mob rule. After all, its a known fact that the minority, the democrats, represent a majority of the population, yet for all that, their voices are equal. Simply speaking, with the Republicans in control of the Congress, and the Executive, Senator Frist had no reason not to offer his compromise. Yet, as the current sessions of congress and the president end AFTER the election, wouldn't it be fair to assume that, were the Democrats to win either a majority in the Senate or the White House, that the republican majority, knowing they are about to be in the minority, or knowing they're about to lose the ability to nominate, wouldn't have reverted to old school rules in a purely partisan maneuver? If you doubt it, you have more faith in politicians than I do. Posted by: Ryan at June 30, 2005 05:15 PMPat, it's not clear to me whether or not you agree with the notion that labor laws should be viewed as unconstitutional since they are an infringement upon free contracts. What did you mean when you said "they were wrong then...etc" I don't want to misunderstand you. Posted by: bk at June 30, 2005 05:32 PMBrian, I believe they were wrong to strike down the wage and hour and working condition laws back at the turn of the century. I was saying that it was just as wrong of them to strike down those laws then as it is for them to strike down the death penalty laws now. Posted by: PatHMV at June 30, 2005 06:46 PMwhoever Bush chooses I will oppose because they are all Nazis Posted by: Susan at July 1, 2005 01:20 AMLovely, Susan. Thank you so much for your contribution to the debate. I now feel so enlightened. Wow. Tully, what was the scoring system you were talking about? Posted by: PatHMV at July 1, 2005 02:09 AMThere used to be a thoughtful conservative-leaning poster named Susan on Centerfield. What happened to her? Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 08:35 AMSimon - What's Olympia Snowe doing voting against CAFTA? I'm assuming it has something to do with a Maine local issue (not that that makes her vote at all principled). Posted by: Scott at July 1, 2005 10:00 AM |
Archives
March 2006
February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003
Recent Entries
Dubai Out
Why So Long Between Democracies? Round One, Centrism Rock Lobster? Blackwell Releases "Worst-Treated" List "IRV" used in Burl., VT for mayor election. Great idea! Random Thread Election 2006: Round One A Proper Multiculturalism Bush proposes line item veto act - what's changed?
|
