November 6, 2004
Arlen Specter stuck his foot squarely in his mouth just hours after winning election in Pennsylvania, suggesting in his comments to the press that under his presumed leadership of the Senate Judiciary Committee, George Bush should take care not to nominate anyone except middle-of-the-road candidates. The uproar from the conservative base has threatened to derail Specter's ascension to the chair and has caused the GOP's Senate contingent to wonder at the best option for response: Republican lawmakers and top Senate aides, speaking privately for the most part, said the uproar from the right was becoming an impediment for Mr. Specter, a Pennsylvania lawmaker who has coveted the chairmanship. They said while it was likely he would still get the post, it was no longer a certainty. "He is not out of the woods,'' said one Senate aide who is closely monitoring developments on the Judiciary Committee, echoing a sentiment expressed...
November 10, 2004
George Bush made the first Cabinet-level selection of his second term, nominating Alberto Gonzalez, Jr for Attorney General. Gonzalez will replace John Ashcroft, who resigned on Election Day. Unfortunately, given Gonzalez' history, I suspect that Gonzalez will also replace Ashcroft as a lightning rod: In tapping Gonzales for the post, Bush picked a fellow Texan who has stirred controversy himself for his role in memos condoning the possible torture of terrorist suspects and arguing that prisoners captured in Afghanistan are not protected by the Geneva Conventions. But the soft-spoken lawyer also has been described as a relative moderate whose conservative credentials are sometimes viewed with suspicion by Bush's more rightist supporters. Gonzalez didn't write the first memo mentioned, nor did he endorse it, but the Post reported that the Justice Department consulted heavily with the White House before drafting it. Both cases give ammunition to partisans in Congress for attempting...
November 14, 2004
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist declined to actively support Arlen Specter, telling Fox News Sunday that Specter had to agree to back all of George Bush's judiciary nominees if he expected to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee: A Republican senator who has questioned whether an abortion opponent could win approval to the U.S. Supreme Court must agree to back President Bush's nominees if he is to head the committee acting on those nominations, the Senate's Republican leader said. Republican Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has yet to make a persuasive case that he should head the panel, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said on "Fox News Sunday." This issue had quieted down somewhat over the past few days, and it looked like Specter might settle into the chairmanship chastened but safely. This looks like a moderate escalation in the battle...
Both Hugh Hewitt and myself have taken a lot of heat for our position on the Arlen Specter kerfuffle. Our readers keep reminding us of Specter's track record over six terms in the Senate as a center-left gadfly in GOP ranks. I don't want to speak for Hugh -- he can speak well enough on his own -- but I am well aware of Specter's track record, and it's not as germane as people think. In the first place, Specter's record on judicial nominations is nowhere near as bad as people like to make out. He took part in the original Borking, and Robert Bork has understandably made Specter's ascension to the chair of the Judiciary Committee a personal crusade. However, during the past term Specter supported every one of Bush's nominees -- every one. And if he blew it with Bork, he had the credibility to attack Anita Hill...
November 20, 2004
John Tabin wrote in today's American Spectator that the groundswell of outrage surrounding Arlen Specter's comments and pending chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee has had a salutary effect on the GOP. Tabin argues convincingly that the debate has caused Specter to retreat substantially on his independence of action: If Specter makes trouble for conservative nominees during the next two years, his betrayal, he must now realize, will have consequences. His fellow Senators were nearly willing to throw away precedents to deny him his chairmanship because of conservative mistrust of the kind of things Specter might do as Judiciary Chairman; Specter would be a fool to give them an immediately recent record to point to. As liberal Sam Rosenfeld wistfully put it on the American Prospect's blog earlier this week, "Arlen Specter the independent and outspoken senior senator from Pennsylvania has already lost out on the chairmanship, and at best...
November 26, 2004
The AP reports that the Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday of an appeal of the Ninth Circuit's ruling that federal anti-marijuana laws do not apply when marijuana is used for medicinal purposes and does not cross state lines. The case promises to shed light on the current court's support of federalism and states' rights: On Monday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that will determine whether Raich and similar patients in California and 10 other states can continue to use marijuana for medical purposes. At issue is whether states have the right to adopt laws allowing the use of drugs the federal government has banned or whether federal drug agents can arrest individuals for abiding by those medical marijuana laws. California passed the nation's first so-called medical marijuana law in 1996, allowing patients to smoke and grow marijuana with a doctor's recommendation. The Bush administration maintains...
November 30, 2004
The Supreme Court heard arguments yesterday in reviewing the constitutionality of California's medicinal-marijuana laws, and at first blush, it looks as though the justices on all sides view the state's-rights argument with deep suspicion: The effort by advocates of the medical use of marijuana to link their cause to the Supreme Court's federalism revolution appeared headed for failure at the court on Monday. During a lively argument, the justices expressed little inclination to view drug policy as a states' rights issue by which California and other states that have adopted "compassionate use" marijuana measures could displace federal regulation of homegrown marijuana distributed to patients without charge and without crossing state lines. ... Mr. Barnett said that relatively few people would meet the medical criteria for legal marijuana use, and that any impact on the overall market for marijuana would therefore be "trivial." The administration, by contrast, has predicted that 100,000...
The Third Circuit Court of Appeal issued a non-sequitur in its decision yesterday striking down the Solomon Amendment, which barred federal funds from universities and colleges that ban military recruiters from their campuses. In its decision, the court incoherently equated colleges with the Boy Scouts: A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in Philadelphia, found that educational institutions have a First Amendment right to keep military recruiters off their campuses to protest the Defense Department policy of excluding gays from military service. The 2-to-1 decision relied in large part on a decision in 2000 by the United States Supreme Court to allow the Boy Scouts to exclude gay scoutmasters. Just as the Scouts have a First Amendment right to bar gays, the appeals court said, law schools may prohibit groups that they consider discriminatory. The 1995 law at issue in the decision, the...
December 13, 2004
The Army Court of Appeals has thrown out a heterosexual sodomy conviction based in part on the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, throwing the ban on gays serving in the military into doubt. The New York Times reports that the impact on military policy will likely be indirect but cumulative: The decision, issued late last month by the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals, was based in part on the Supreme Court opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which declared last year that the Texas sodomy statute violated the right to privacy. The case before the Army court involved a male Army specialist who admitted that he had engaged in consensual oral sex in a barracks room with a female civilian whom he had met at a nightclub. But those seeking to abolish the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, and some legal experts, say the ruling is...
December 20, 2004
Robert Novak lined up behind Senate majority leader Bill Frist and the so-called nuclear option of a rule change to eliminate filibusters on judicial nominations. Novak points out that Democratic Senator Robert Byrd created four precedents for such rule changes when he ran the Senate, and that nothing short of a rule change will stop the planned filibusters from continuing: Ever since Frist publicly embraced the nuclear option, he has been accused of abusing the Senate's cherished tradition of extended debate. In truth, during six years as majority leader, Democrat Robert C. Byrd four times detonated the nuclear option to rewrite Senate rules. Thus, Frist would set no precedent, would not contradict past Republican behavior and would not strip the GOP of protection as a future Senate minority. The question is whether Republican senators will flinch from the only maneuver open to confirm Bush's judges. The unprecedented Democratic plan to...
The GOP juggled commitee assignments today, shifting two strong anti-abortion advocates to the Senate Judiciary Commitee to give George Bush ample political support for the expected conservative nominees to federal courts this session of Congress: Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) and Sen.-elect Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) will join the panel's eight returning Republicans next month, assuming the Republican Conference follows tradition and approves the leadership's committee assignments for all 55 GOP senators. The breakdown of Judiciary will be 10 Republicans and eight Democrats. ... Brownback and Coburn replace Sens. Larry E. Craig (Idaho) and Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), who will shift to other committees. Craig and Chambliss are solid conservatives but are not as focused on abortion as their replacements are. Democrats, who lost four net Senate seats last month, will not replace the retiring Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) on the committee. Their eight remaining members will stay on the panel. The Senate...
December 23, 2004
After seeing the Senate minority leader lose his re-election bid in part due to Tom Daschle's efforts at obstructing George Bush's judicial nominations, the White House has anted up a second time, promising to nominate the same candidates in the new session of Congress: President Bush said on Thursday he would renominate a group of controversial judicial nominees who were blocked by Senate Democrats, signaling the start of a second-term battle over the make-up of the nation's top courts. Emboldened by his re-election victory and gains by Republicans in the Senate, Bush plans to renominate a total of 20 nominees to the nation's court of appeals and district courts, the White House said. Ten of those nominees drew filibusters or threats to obstruct their progress, an unprecedented action that may have allowed the GOP to convince voters that Democrats overreached in Bush's first term. Harry Reid, Daschle's replacement as minority...
December 31, 2004
A California appellate court has ordered the Los Angeles City Council to perform an apparently extraordinary duty -- to pay attention to its own meetings: During public hearings, members of the City Council talk on cell phones, chat among themselves, read mail or wander around the room. A state appeals court says they should be doing something else: paying attention. Ruling on a suit brought by the owners of a strip club, the 2nd District Court of Appeal said the 15-member council acts as a quasi-judicial body when it holds hearings and has a legal duty to listen to testimony — or risk violating citizens' due process. In a hearing involving a strip club owner who was seeking to extend his hours, both sides "had the right to be equally heard, not equally ignored," the court wrote in a decision Thursday, ordering a new hearing. In the case which sparked...
January 16, 2005
Senator Harry Reid told ABC's This Week that any attempt to push through a rule change would cause the GOP heartache down the road: The Senate's Democratic leader said Sunday that Republicans "would rue the day" if they try to make it harder for Democrats to stall judicial nominees who could not get a vote last year. ... Reid compared Bush's talk of crisis in judicial nominations to the president's rhetoric on Social Security. "He's trying to create crisis with judges and with Social Security. They don't exist," Reid told ABC's "This Week." "We have approved for the president of the United States 204 judges the last four years," he said. "We've turned down 10. Even in modern math, that's a pretty good deal." He said the 10 who did not get a vote in 2004 "were rightfully turned down." The White House announced last month that Bush would renominate...
January 21, 2005
Arlen Specter may find himself back on the hotseat again, according to The American Spectator (hat tip: CQ reader Caleb). Specter gained the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee only after a brief but intense controversy stirred up by Specter's warning on judicial nominees to President Bush. Now his own hiring practices have come under attack after selecting a senior aide that has strong ties to the same groups that attacked Bush's nominees in the past: Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter went back on his word to Republican caucus members and conservative groups alike when he recently hired Hannibal G. Williams II Kemerer, who until recently was the NAACP's assistant general counsel. Specter hired Kemerer against the wishes of his senior Judiciary Committee staff. "We warned him this was going to cause trouble, but Specter said it was his committee, we are his staff, and he's going to do...
January 22, 2005
Today is the 32nd anniversary of the seminal Supreme Court decision Roe v Wade that raised abortion to the status of a "right" and paved the way for the destruction of 43 million fetuses. Thirty years later, this piece of judicial activism appears to hang in the balance of a re-elected conservative president with a Senate majority, but in truth abortion faces less danger than presumed: Coming just two days after George W. Bush's inauguration, Saturday's anniversary of the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion is dominated by the hopes of one side — and fears of the other — that the president will try to overturn Roe v. Wade through appointments to fill expected high court vacancies. ... Anti-abortion lawmakers in Congress and several states, meanwhile, are introducing the latest in a wave of measures aimed at making it more daunting to obtain an abortion. The bills would require...
February 1, 2005
Fresh off of their reaction to the historic Iraqi elections as a defeat which required an immediate retreat, the leadership of the Democratic Party further cemented its separation from political reality by declaring today that they failed to obstruct enough judicial nominees in the last session of Congress: Senate Democrats are "not going to cut and run" from a battle over President Bush's judicial nominations, the party's leader vowed Tuesday, adding that some Democrats regret not having blocked even more appointments. "If they bring back the same judges we're going to do the same thing," Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said of the administration. Democrats blocked votes on 10 of Bush's first-term appointments to the courts and confirmed more than 200. Republicans have threatened to change long-standing Senate rules to strip Democrats of their ability to block votes, but Reid sounded a note of defiance. "Well, let them do it," he...
February 24, 2005
Ruth Marcus in today's Washington Post notes that Senator Arlen Specter has hardly mellowed after the compromise that left him in his Judiciary Committee chairmanship or with the recent diagnosis of Hodgkin's Disease. In a visit with the Post's editorial board yesterday, Specter appears to have backtracked significantly on his agreement with the GOP on President Bush's judicial nominations, in spirit if not in fact: If you thought that his brush with losing the committee chairmanship had chastened the legendarily contrarian Specter, if you thought his recent diagnosis of Hodgkin's disease might have tempered his approach -- well, that wasn't the Specter on display in a visit with The Post editorial board yesterday. Instead, the discussion featured Specter Unbound: the Specter who voted against Robert H. Bork rather than the one who rallied to the defense of Clarence Thomas. Specter had some cautionary words for Democrats as well -- chiding...
March 2, 2005
The Los Angeles Times reports today that the new Democratic Senator from Colorado, Ken Salazar, didn't take long to betray one of his "centrist" positions from his election campaign. After telling conservative Coloradans that he supported Bush's judicial nominees during his election, he now has sent a letter to Bush telling him to withdraw said nominees, including one Salazar pointedly said he would support: Hopes that the Senate could rapidly confirm some troubled judicial nominations ran into a roadblock Tuesday when one of the moderate Democrats expected to support a vote by the full Senate on the nominees instead called on President Bush to withdraw the 10 candidates he resubmitted last month. The move by Sen. Ken Salazar (D-Colo.), a newcomer to the Senate, surprised both sides in the rancorous debate and came just hours after the Senate Judiciary Committee held a second testy hearing for one of those nominees...
Two Jewish groups have denounced Senator Robert Byrd for his equating Hitler and the GOP and have demanded an apology and a retraction, the AP reports today, in a development that may signal a crack in the media disinterest that has marked Byrd's antics up to now. The first group to criticize Byrd was the the Republican Jewish Coalition, a group that Democrats could dismiss as partisan. However, the second group, the Anti-Defamation League, will not so easily be disregarded by Byrd's colleagues: Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said Wednesday that Byrd's remarks showed "a profound lack of understanding as to who Hitler was" and that the senator should apologize to the American people. "It is hideous, outrageous and offensive for Senator Byrd to suggest that the Republican Party's tactics could in any way resemble those of Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party," Foxman said. The...
CNN jumped into the fray over Senator Robert Byrd's Nazi reference in its Inside Politics look at the blogs. Hugh Hewitt played the segment on his show tonight as Judy Woodruff, Jacki Schechner, and Abbi Tatton reviewed the Byrd scandal through CQ and Radioblogger: WOODRUFF: ... Time now to check what's going on in the blogosphere. And with me once again today to talk about what they are talking about, CNN political producer Abbi Tatton and Jacki Schechner. She's our blog reporter. So, Jacki, I bet it's not baseball. JACKI SCHECHNER, CNN BLOG REPORTER: No, it's more like Byrd. We've already heard what Senator Robert Byrd said on the floor of the Senate, comparing Republican tactics to Adolph Hitler's rise to power. Conservative blogs all over it. Over at Captain's Quarters, he's got plenty to say, including this comment: "Byrd, with his attempted filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of...
March 3, 2005
Senator Robert Byrd's office issued a defense of his remarks comparing Republican attempts to bar filibusters on judicial nominations with Naziism in the Senate earlier this week. Unfortunately, it appears that Byrd's staff suffers from the same incoherence that afflicts their boss most of the time: Sen. Robert Byrd's description of Adolf Hitler's rise to power was meant as a warning to heed the past and not as a comparison to Republicans, a spokesman for the West Virginia Democrat says. ... "Terrible chapters of history ought never be repeated," said Tom Gavin, spokesman for Byrd. "All one needs to do is to look at history to see how dangerous it is to curb the rights of the minority." Put aside all of the historical inaccuracies that one has to swallow for that argument to work, such as the fact that the Enabling Law basically abdicated the Reichstag and made Hitler...
March 4, 2005
Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) has written a detailed rebuttal to Robert Byrd's argument on the Senate floor earlier this week, when (apart from the abhorrent Nazi analogies) the former Klan recruiter took on the mantle of the protector of minority rights. Cornyn demolishes Byrd's arguments that the GOP's attempt to change precedent on filibusters has any Hitlerian overtones by pointing out the specifics of when Byrd himself successfully did the same thing: Recall that it was Sen. Byrd who led the charge to establish new Senate precedents in 1977, 1979, 1980, and 1987 - including a number of precedents that were designed specifically to stop filibusters and other delay tactics that were previously authorized under Senate rules or prior precedents ... In 1980, Senator Byrd led the establishment of a new precedent to require an immediate vote, without debate, on any motion to go into executive session to consider a...
March 15, 2005
Hugh Hewitt links to a Boston Globe article on the debate over filibustering judicial nominations which reports that Senator Mitch McConnell may not have much enthusiasm for a rule change which would eliminate them. Called interchangeably the "nuclear" or "Constitutional" option, the rule change could pass on a straight majority vote and end the recent practice of Democrats to block floor votes on judicial nominations. I understand that the majority whip may not want to create more trouble than already exists in the Senate, but the antics of the Democrats in this session already demonstrate their intransigence. First Senator Harry Reid allowed Barbara Boxer to hijack the Electoral College vote to grandstand about non-existent voter fraud in Ohio, which the Democrats lost by over a hundred thousand votes in 2004 while winning Wisconsin with less than a tenth of that and real voter fraud in their powerbase of Milwaukee. Then...
Senator Harry Reid released a statement on the Capitol steps this afternoon that completely destroys any pretense that the Senate Minority Leader ever intended to work towards any reasonable accommodation with the GOP majority. Not only did Reid overreact to the ongoing debate over the proposed rule change for judicial nominations by threatening to shut the entire Senate down while the nation is at war and threatened by attack, but the statement itself is so inaccurate and historically bankrupt that it removes whatever confidence remained in his ability to lead in a rational manner. Reid starts off by completely misinterpreting the intent of the Constitution's framers: Our Constitution provides for checks and balances so that no one person in power, so that no one political party can hold total control over the course of our nation. Absolutely untrue, at least in terms of political parties. First, the founders didn't give...
March 16, 2005
Just when we thought Harry Reid's incoherent analysis of the Constitution had lowered the bar as far as possible on judicial nominations and filibusters, along comes Old Reliable -- Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, who himself authored four changes to the filibuster rule as Senate Majority Leader to favor the majority, told The Hill that the proposed rule change equated to an assassination. I'm not kidding: Today at noon, Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) will address MoveOn PAC members about the nuclear option. Byrd (D-W.Va.), the chamber’s longest-serving member, used the Ides of March anniversary to invoke Julius Caesar’s murder and told The Hill that “freedom of speech in the Senate is about to be assassinated.” “Let’s don’t let it happen,” he added. “Fight.” Byrd hasn't posted this speech to his website as yet, and if he's equating Bill Frist with Brutus,...
March 17, 2005
Duane at Radioblogger has the audio clip and transcript from Barbara Boxer's appearance at the MoveOn rally in support of Senate Democrats and their unprecedented filibusters of judicial nominees. After such luminaries as Ted Kennedy and Robert Byrd railed on interminably about the evils of majority rule (in America!) and the need to preserve the Constitution, they committed the fatal blunder of allowing Boxer to speak: Why would we give lifetime appointments to people who earn up to $200,000 a year, with absolutely a great retirement system, and all the things all Americans wish for, with absolutely no check and balance except that one confirmation vote. So we're saying we think you ought to get nine votes over the 51 required. That isn't too much to ask for such a super important position. There ought to be a super vote. Don't you think so? It's the only check and balance...
March 30, 2005
In denying the Schindlers a final en banc appeal, the opinion for the denial includes a shot at Congress and the President by Justice Stanley Birch: Birch went on to scold President Bush and Congress for their attempts to intervene in the judicial process, by saying: "In resolving the Schiavo controversy, it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people our Constitution [sic]." Talk about judicial arrogance! Not only did the Eleventh Circuit openly disregard the law written by Congress, this justice arrogantly tells the other equal branches that the only branch guaranteeing a free people is the one not accountable to the will of the electorate. Bear in mind that none of the courts that reviewed this case after the...
Radioblogger listened to the press conference held by People for the American Way and its president, Ralph Neas, as they launched their new ad campaign against a proposed rule change eliminating filibusters on judicial confirmations in the Senate. [Why? Well, someone had to do it, I guess -- CE] Apparently, Neas bubbled over with joy at finding a "common sense Republican" to front PFAW's ad blitz, hoping it will convince other GOP voters to demand their Senators vote against the ban. So who did Neas find? Brent Scowcroft? Henry Kissinger? Jim Jeffords? The ghost of Nelson Rockefeller? No! Neas found ... Ted Nonini. You know ... that Ted Nonini. Still stumped? Welcome to the club. Ted Nonini, as it turns out, works as a Los Angeles firefighter -- obviously a brave man -- but as a politician, he doesn't have much of a track record. A Google search on Fireman...
April 14, 2005
Senator John McCain appeared on Hardball within the last hour to inform Chris Matthews and the MS-NBC audience that he would refuse to vote for the so-called "nuclear option", the rule change that would disallow filibusters on executive nominations for the federal bench. He stated that he would vote with the Democrats to uphold the notion that a legislative minority has the right to dictate to the executive branch who their nominees should be: MATTHEWS: But bottom line, would you vote for what’s called the “nuclear option,” to get rid of the filibuster rule on judgeships? MCCAIN: No I will not. MATTHEWS: You will stick with the party? MCCAIN: No, I will vote against the nuclear option. MATTHEWS: You will vote— MCCAIN: Against the nuclear option. MATTHEWS: Oh, you will? MCCAIN: Yes. I initially heard this exchange on the Hugh Hewitt show, and I almost choked when Hugh referred to...
Contrary to its own headline, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist plans on dawdling for weeks longer before finally addressing the issue of Democratic obstructionism on nominations for the federal bench, the Washington Post reports in its Friday edition: Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is all but certain to press for a rule change that would ban filibusters of judicial nominations in the next few weeks, despite misgivings by some of his fellow Republicans and a possible Democratic backlash that could paralyze the chamber, close associates said yesterday. The strategy carries significant risks for the Tennessee Republican, who is weighing a 2008 presidential bid. It could embroil the Senate in a bitter stalemate that would complicate passage of President Bush's agenda and raise questions about Frist's leadership capabilities. Should he fail to make the move or to get the necessary votes, however, Frist risks the ire of key conservative groups that...
April 15, 2005
The Hill reports today that the GOP has not only lost its momentum on judicial nominations, but that it acknowledges being out-generalled by the lightly-regarded Harry Reid on filibusters. In a stinging indictment of Republican leadership on Capitol Hill, GOP staffers and politicians now want to create a "war room" to recapture the message they frittered away in the session's opening weeks: Senate Republican leaders were due to meet last night amid rising concern that they are being beaten on the “nuclear option” by Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-Nev.) public-relations war room. The GOP’s talks follow a meeting last week in which aides warned Bob Stevenson, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist’s (R-Tenn.) communications director, that something needs to be done to win back lost ground, a participant said. “I think there’s a realization that this particular [Democratic] effort has to be countered and they’re in full-scale attack mode,” a GOP aide...
April 16, 2005
Since I wrote the post "Not. One. Dime." two days ago in response to the news that the Senate GOP leadership doesn't plan on addressing filibusters on judicial nominations for weeks (Frist) or even months (Santorum), a predictable debate has arisen among the right about the effect of a money shortage on the NRSC and Republican efforts to hold the majority in 2006. Bloggers with whom I normally agree have scolded me. My VRWC -- an excellent blogger -- takes me to task for not remembering 1992 and Ross Perot in my comments section. My friend Matt Margolis of GOP Bloggers does much the same on his site. I'm not moved. Can anyone remember why George H. W. Bush lost in 1992, why his base lost their enthusiasm for his candidacy? Bush had campaigned in 1988 as a disciple of Ronald Reagan, promising to hold the line on taxes and...
April 17, 2005
Jeffrey Rosen writes a long article in today's New York Times magazine, which starts off by lambasting Justice Clarence Thomas and then paints a picture of Republican efforts over the years to create Supreme Courts that will give unfettered reign to the rule of corporations. This lengthy and tedious essay goes on interminably about the Constitution in Exile movement and a supposed network of jurists standing by to take us back to its "glory days". David Bernstein at the Volokh Conspiracy notes several issues with Rosen's scholarship, however: Jeff Rosen is a learned guy who has written some rather perceptive things about the so-called Lochner era in his law review scholarhip. See 66 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1241. Unfortunately, in his journalistic piece in the Times magazine, he simply regurgitates Progressive myths when recounting constitutional history. You can read all of Bernstein's rebuttals on one page here. This piece didn't...
One of the results of the posts I've written about the lack of effort on the part of the Senate GOP in resolving the obstructionism of the Democrats on judicial nominations is a tremendous debate on the right about strategy and consequences of action and non-action, by both politicians and voters alike. The debate has resulted in well-written arguments on all sides, and even those criticizing me make excellent points well worth considering. For the small amount of time I've had in front of the computer tonight, I've spent it reading the rebuttals as well as the agreements, which has given me food for thought. One of the questions many have asked on their own blogs as well as in their comments is why I feel that the time for patience has run out. Some argue that waiting a few more weeks or even months -- or even until next...
April 18, 2005
In the ongoing debate about the lengthy GOP hesitation in forcing a vote on the filibuster rule change, many people have written about politics being the art of the possible, and the unreasonableness of expectation that legislation can get passed in the first 90 days of a new session. Mark Noonan at GOP Bloggers probably wrote it best: Now, what do we conservatives (many of whom are highly upset right now) want? We want taxes reduced massively; we want the War on Terrorism won; we want Social Security privatised; we want abortion at least highly restricted if not banned outright; we want prayer back in public schools; we want tort reform; we want regulatory reform; we want increased nuclear power and oil drilling; we want our borders secured; we want illegal immigrants deported; we want government spending to be heavily cut; we want conservative judges to be approved yesterday...pretty simple,...
April 20, 2005
Two days ago, Hugh Hewitt mentioned on the air that his sources have it that Bill Frist will schedule a vote for one of Bush's embargoed judicial nominees, which will allow Frist to push for the rule change on filibusters. So far, however, I have yet to see this confirmed in any news report. In fact, Frist has remained silent so far on any upcoming move; the only statement he made was yesterday's reiteration of his general opposition to filibusters: "It is unfortunate that Democrats continue to block up-or-down votes on President Bush's judicial nominees, thereby keeping the Senate from doing its constitutional duty," Majority Leader Bill Frist said Tuesday in a written statement. Now we have Frist losing another nomination battle with the Democrats when the Republicans on the Foreign Relations Committee failed to do any timely research on the one witness to come forward to claim that John...
April 21, 2005
CQ reader Dafydd ab Hugh notes that the AP believes that Senator Bill Frist might finally bring some of the embargoed judicial nominations to the Senate floor next week, if he can get them out of committee: The Republican-controlled Senate is moving closer to a showdown over whether Democrats can continue filibustering President Bush's judicial nominees now that two of the White House's favored court appointees are scheduled for final committee approval. Texas judge Priscilla Owen and California judge Janice Rogers Brown, who were blocked by Democrats during Bush's first term, were up for approval by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday. Owen, nominated by Bush for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, and Brown, seeking a lifetime slot on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia, secured committee approval during Bush's first term. However, they were blocked from...