Pressure from the Right on Judges:
The New York Times has the scoop.
Features
Stuff from us
Academic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates
Sources on the Second Amendment
Pressure from the Right on Judges:
The New York Times has the scoop.
|
ContactSubscribe
FeaturesStuff from usAcademic Legal Writing: personalized bookplates Sources on the Second Amendment BlogrollArchivesThe Volokh Conspiracy uses and recommends: |
He's a marvelous man and we're lucky he's willing and able to do the job.
(Yes, that National Enquirer. The one that brought us the facts on Jesse Jackson's illegitimate child and many of the details on Clinton's liaisons with Monica Lewinsky.)
I agree with you that President Bush is a great President, but there are a lot of us in the Republican base who've given too much time and money to Bush and other Republican campaigns to be stabbed in the back (again) on judges.
At some point, political leaders and the parties they depend on have to put up or shut up. President Bush campaigned on a promise to appoint judges in the Scalia/Thomas mold. Many social conservatives, me included, voted for the President in large part because of his philosophy with respect to judicial nominations.
The general consensus is that he lived up to his promise with John Roberts' appointment. Bush better continue to keep his promise, or there will be a lot of folks on the Right who will punish Republican candidates for years to come.
The Republican base is sick of liberal Republican-appointed justices like Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Sure, Ginsburg and Breyer are terrible judges, but at least they come by it honestly. President Bush has an obligation to appoint a real conservative to the bench, and I fully expect that he will do so.
I, for one, am interested to see if the senators making these pronouncements actually make good on their threats to demand yes or no answers from nominees on questions like abortion, etc., or if they wimp out. My guess is that while they might start off demanding answers, the nominee is going to stonewall them by following the "Roberts precedent" and eventually wear them down until s/he makes it out of committee with a close (probably party-line) vote. In that case, the ultimate deciding factor will be the nominee's paper trail, so the administration really is going to have to appoint another Roberts (someone with no record on contentious issues), lest they lose votes from liberal Republicans like Snowe, Chafee, etc.
Of course, I'm probably wrong. Feel free to tell me how much I am underestimating the resolve of conservative Republicans/all Democrats. Cheers!
So the Enquirer gets two things right, and thus the story is reliable? Or is your argument that the National Enquirer sometimes (or, at least twice) gets things right, and thus the story should not immediately be disregarded? Or are you not making any specific arguments, but rather arguing by innuendo?
I hate to be so curt. But whether someone has fallen back into alcholism is very serious. It's not something we should immedately assume (or hope) is true merely because it might work to our partisan advantage. And whether someone has indeed slipped back into a disastrous lifestyle isn't something we should bandy about.
So if the point of your comment was merely to say, "Hmmm...," fair enough. But if the point of your comment was that we should believe something in the National Enquirer because they're been right twice (out of how many thousands) of times before, that's is something quite different.
"The Republican base is sick of liberal Republican-appointed justices like Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. Sure, Ginsburg and Breyer are terrible judges, but at least they come by it honestly. President Bush has an obligation to appoint a real conservative to the bench, and I fully expect that he will do so."
A friend commented today that if there suddenly appeared a positive proof of George W Bush molesting a 12 year old boy, complete with pictures, the 33% support for him would not change. It takes a lot to be a True Believer, and complete denial is just one of the requirements.
Another friend commented last October, "They've reelected a Buchanan and are acting as if they got another Lincoln."
Here's a partial quotation from a college text on a president: "Plodding and unimaginative, he was a loyal party man who strongly sympathized with the South..."
I guess, the similarity with Buchanan runs deeper than even my friend thought.
In any case, the SCOTUS nomination just got tougher, with Frist about to tank it (or, as several bloggers suggested, to "Lott" it). I wonder how the True Believers are reacting to the insider-trading scandal.
And one other thing--one need not be liberal or a Democrat to despise the morons at the White House. But it sure takes special character to defend them.
Taking random anecdotes is hardly proof of incompetence by the way (there are far more substantive ways to do that), and also suggests yet again that you may not exactly be part of what you imply is the "reasonable" group of americans.
On another point, when did this blog start atrracting so many social conservatives?
Outside of that, erp, your first post I just find hilarious. He wanted the job. Why should we be that rip-roaring excited that he's willing to do it. Not like he got yanked off the street, flung in a suit, and was told "Have it, Rove will give you your lines." Although reality shows ARE all the rage currently...
Dan
I suppose the weeks after 9/11 don't count. They were an awfully long time ago.
"The theory is a very straight foward one, if the court gets it wrong, Congress can fix it. And the Constitution, the court has explained, is different. Obviously, short of amendment, only the court can fix the constitutional precedents."
Robert's talks a lot about precedent yet if you don't know where he stand on abortion, refer to his Brief for the Respondent at 13, Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991).
Robert's is a solid nomination but I believe him to be a risk for overturning roe v. wade and many have harped on this fact about his lax attitude towards woman's rights..
What point are you trying to make, Justin? VC is a well-known blog, attracting new readers every day. As with any blog, you may be seeing posts from people who have been reading the blog for years but only recently decided to venture a comment.
Besides, consistent comments have only very recently become a feature of this blog - they were formerly enabled only rarely on a per-post basis.
Well, duh! Votes from liberals like Chafee and Collins have never been a sure thing, and I think that is fine. It would be a pretty kettle of fish if a nominee managed to loose both the liberals and the conservatives - especially with the President twisting arms. I think this is nothing more than wishful thinking by the Times.
The real concern, it seems to me, is a Democrat filibuster. Absent that, I am convinced that there is sufficient Senate support to confirm almost anyone, especially the names that have been mentioned.
This seems to me like more Times "news" fabricated from whole cloth, strictly designed to shore up the meme that the President is so unpopular that he can no longer effectively do anything.
Don't you think that's somewhat overstating a footnote?
I would cheerfully argue the point.
Of course, perhaps some of the posters above really only care about these social issues--a fact I find a bit odd fpr a self-touted libertarian blog (and, I should note, my favorite law blog, for the collection of talent here).
The NYT piece said nothing new, added nothing new, and reported nothing that could qualify as news. It was a complete non-event, the print version of the time-filling that occurs on cable news channels while waiting for something to happen. Yet, from the headline, you would think there was some surprising new development that warranted a story.
Reading the headline, "Next Court Nominee May Face Challenges From G.O.P.," one might assume that (a) there had been a nominee, and (b) this nominee carried baggage that Republicans in general would object to. Everything about this is false. First, obviously there is no nominee, therefore by definition there is no story. But even more misleading is the idea that "the G.O.P." was likely to object to this non-existent nominee. Again, the only thing mentioned in the story is that ultra-liberal Republicans might object to a conservative nominee, and that conservative Republicans might object to a non-conservative nominee.
There is not a single syllable of news value in this article. It is simply rabble-rousing, a continuation of Pinch Sulzberger's anti-Bush crusade.
And the reason there appear to be more conservatives responding to thise site is because of the historical affinity between libertarians and conservatives. Conservatives understand the libertarian impulse. Many of us also want the government to butt out. We differ on when we approve of government intrusion but often find common cause. Together, we make a majority. Apart, we are a debating society.
What exactly is an "ultra-liberal"? is it like some ultimate plateau entry-level liberals reach when they pass a courageous test of endurance that few of their peers can emulate? "I now bestow upon you, the title of....ULTRA-LIBERAL!" Is it some form of bionic liberal from the future with super crime fighting powers?
I think this must be somewhat incorrect because judging from right-wing talk radio, there seems to be more 'ultra-liberals' than regular vanilla liberals, whom appear to be outnumbered by at least a 10-1 margin. Sometimes you get the feeling that there are no liberals at all, and that they've all morphed into 'ULTRA-Liberals.'
I like the term "Ultra-Liberal" because I agree with the need to classify those liberals with psychokinetic powers, superhuman strength or who'm otherwise consistently display excellence apart from mortal liberals. But if everyone to the left of John McCain is an "Ultra-Liberal" I think the qualifications for Ultra status need to be revamped at the next meeting.
I think that you all assume that it must be absolute in this case, and that's making you look foolish.
Lincoln Chafee is, quite simply, the most liberal Republican currently in the U.S. Senate, both by voting and by stated policy. In fact, his voting puts him roughly in line with the center of the Democratic caucus in the Senate.
In such circumstances, I think that it is relatively safe to call him "ultra-liberal" to distinguish him from the simply liberal Republican senators, like Specter, Snowe, and (to some extent) Collins.
I don't think that it would be inappropriate to do something similar when discussing the differences between, say, Zell Miller and John Breaux.
In which case the President should err on the side of sending the Senate a nominee who is conservative (read: federalist, originalist) regardless of whether it offends the pro-abortion litmus test of Senators Chaffee and Snowe. The Senate only needs 51 votes to confirm a nominee which means that Republicans can afford lose up to 5 Senators (Chaffee, Snowe, and Collins are really the only ones likely to defect) and still get a well-qualified nominee approved by the Senate.
Further, I don't think the Supreme Court should overturn Roe v. Wade because I oppose abortion. I think Roe should be overturned because it was wrongly decided. What's socially conservative about that?
Besides, read my original post. I didn't argue that Bush should appoint social conservatives to the bench, I argued that Bush should appoint judicial conservatives because of his promise to social conservatives.
Straight up, boss. I'm liberal as catch-all and despise Roe. The Rule of Law RULES!
According to statistical analyses at sites like Voteview.com, Chafee is only to the left of Ben Nelson (D-NE).
If Chafee and Snowe break off, there won't even be an up-and-down vote; the nomination will be pulled once it's clear that a filibuster would be successful.
Doubt that only because I see a lot of Republicans spoiling for implementing the Nuclear Option. It was one thing when the Democrats fillibustered appeals nominees. But the Republicans joined with the Democrats to almost unanimously approve ACLU attorney Ginsburg for the High Court, and having the Democrats fillibuster here would be just the incentive needed to implement it.
So, I will suggest that the proper count is losig 6 Republicans, not 2, because with 50, Cheney breaks ties. And that means that 6 of the 7 "moderate" Republicans in the Gang of 14 would have to bail - and some of them would face significant pressure not to. It just takes two of them to vote with the rest of the Republicans to get the Nuclear Option.
Where I think you're wrong is that I think that so long as there's 1-2 Republicans who oppose the nominee, then I believe that the other five Republicans in the Gang (even if they support the nominee) won't support using the nuclear option to put him in. I think people like McCain and Warner would rather be seen as Preservers of the Senate rather than ramming through a questionable nominee.
Does anyone believe that the Democrats wouldn't use the nuclear option if they had the presidency and 51 votes?
Trust me, I know ;-)
If Kerry had flipped Ohio, we'd be facing Charles Schumer and Lawrence Tribe as new additions to SCOTUS.
Let's thank our luck stars, jeez, and smell the roses every once in a while:)
Senators John Warren (R-VA) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC) both said after they signed onto the “Deal” that they would consider the filibustering of a SCOTUS nominee to be a breach of the agreement and then feel free to invoke the Byrd Option.
There’s your two.
Of course since the Democratic signatories are already in breach of the express terms of the Deal by failing to all vote for cloture on Judge Owens, the Republican signatories already have sufficient cause to vote for the Byrd option and end the filibustering of any future nominees.
Yes, I am also worried that he may not help overturn roe v. wade.