Supreme Court : Politics and the new standard to evaluate

[Melensdad]

Probably one of the most divisive things facing the nation is the makeup of the Supreme Court. Here is my take on things . . .


I am going out on a limb, but I suspect that Judge Roberts will get less than 70 of the votes in the full senate. Virtually all senators believe him to be qualified, however the left wing Dems seem intent on not allowing an easy confirmation of even a highly qualified, relatively uncontroversial nominee.

The Democrats, while not openly fighting Judge Roberts, are gearing up for a real fight over the next Bush nominee, the nominee who will replace Judge O'Connor.

Just like Justice Ginsburg did in her hearings in the early 90's, Roberts did was clear that he would not promise or commit to rule any one way on either hypothetical or hot topics presented to him.

Charles Schumer turned out to be the biggest loser of political power in the nomination battle as he was clearly attempting to establish some form of "ideological standard" for confirmation hearings. Schumer had been setting the ground work with lower court hearings and essentially laid the groundwork to push nominees to state policy positions, he has been working on this for quite a while, it seems clear and undeniable that this pattern was set up in advance of, and specifically for a supreme court battle. Roberts very skillfully used the "Ginsberg" standard to navigate the minefield Schumer laid out. Schumer took the crushing blow of defeat when last week Justice Ginsberg herself refuted Schumer's claims and that essentially gave a defacto support of Robert's actions.

Senators Kennedy & Biden clearly tried to politicize the nomination, they failed, but they didn't really lose much in the process. Their comments were more colorful but less meaningful than Schumer's attempts.

Robert will clearly win support in the senate and be our next Chief Justice, he will not get near unanimous support.


Bush is hinting that Sandra Day O'Connor will be quota nomination (minority or a woman). Keep your eyes on Priscilla Owen. Alberto Gonzales is often mentioned as a Bush favorite, I think he is unlikely to be appointed due to intense Democratic dislike of him and some of his written advice during the early stages of the Iraqi invasion.



Thoughts

 

[Melensdad]

Oh, I would also suggest that if Owen is nominated, we will see a filibuster and possbily the "nuclear" option envoked.

Could be a very fun few months coming our way.

 

[Melensdad]

Oh come on now. Am I the only one who digs into this stuff?

Nobody wants to come out an play?

 

[OkeeDon]

Some of us, especially us retired folk, actually have other things to do! But, I'll play for awhile. I admit to not being as much into the details as you. But, I don't think there is any cause for alarm if Roberts does not get more than 70% of the vote. The reason he will pass at all is because the Dems recognize there is a majority GOP, and Roberts is likely to be as good as they can get out of this President, and because they will reserve their strategy for someone they perceive to be really bad.

For me, I'm reconciled to having an ultra conservative court, as a result of this court's own actions. In 2000, we had a conservative-leaning court name a conservative president fo the sole reason of increasing and solidyfying the conservative majority. This was self-preservation at it's finest. They knew that if a Dem was elected President, he would get to name at least a couple of Justices, and the court would remain somewhat in balance, if not slightly left-leaning. Justices like Scalia and Thomas could not abide such a possibility, so when the opportunity presented itself, they took action, and George Bush became President.

Things have gone downhill ever since. Considering that most Dems, myself very strongly included, believe that the 2000 election and the Presidency was stolen from them by the Supremes, why do you find it surprising that they will use any weapon they have to retaliate? Or, do you depend on the good nature of Dems to eternally lean over and say, "Kick me"?

 

[Melensdad]

For me, I'm reconciled to having an ultra conservative court

Don, did you see the press conference with GW about 3 weeks ago when he was specifically asked about the NEXT nomination and his feelings about "Roe vs Wade?"

He said : Heck I don't care how those people get out of New Orleans, they can row their boats, or they can wade through the water, they just got to get the heck out!

 

[OkeeDon]

Sure, I saw it. That's what folks interested in poilitics do. It's what makes us interested in politics. And, it's hard work.

 

[bczoom]

They knew that if a Dem was elected President, he would get to name at least a couple of Justices, and the court would remain somewhat in balance, if not slightly left-leaning.

I've heard of a left-leaning court and what they can do... If I recall, it's called something like the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Talk about a group that's way out in left field.

 

[nixon]

Okay , I've just got to ask . What exactly is the Nuclear option ? and how does it come into play against a threatened fillibuster . Thanks, John

 

[bczoom]

What exactly is the Nuclear option?

John,
Glad you joined us!
Do a google search on "Nuclear Option" and take a look at the first couple replies. You'll get all sides of the story.
Brian

 

[Junkman]

Isn't the Nuclear Option what the North Koreans are touting...

 

[Melensdad]

Isn't the Nuclear Option what the North Koreans are touting...

Contrary to what Junkman wrote, the "nuclear option" is a change in rules that the Republicans would impose on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Without getting into all the nitty gritty, currently the minority party can essentially block a nomination of a Justice through several tactics by preventing a vote from actually taking place in the committee. The nominee gets stuck in a bottleneck, and it can last forever. Currently there are probably 50 or more lower federal court justices that are in 'limbo' due to these parlimentary rules. So under the current system, the minority party can prevent the majorty party from even getting their nominee to the full senate floor by using some parlimentary tricks to prevent that. What was recently coined as the "nuclear option" would force a vote in committee to take place, which would allow for a vote to occur by the full senate.

 

[OkeeDon]

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, how conveniently the majority party forgets the way in which Jesse Helms single-handedly held up far more judge-ship approvals than the Dems have ever considered, for far less reason, when the GOP was the minority party. And, how little his colleagues did to change it, many of them not-so-secretly encouraging him or helping him, or at least going along with it.

The numbers do not lie. The Dems have approved far more judges in GWB's administration that the GOP did during the Clinton administration after they gained control of Congress.

Furthermore, while the Dems did cry and complain loudly, they did NOT consider the use of extraordinary and dangerous procedures to overrule the dissenters. If the GOP uses the "nuclear option", it will be yet another example of how ruthless and dirty the GOP is willing to be compared to their kinder and gentler Dem opposition.

Personally, I hope the GOP does use the Nuclear Option. It will be yet another way, like the Whitewater case and the Iraq War and FEMA and Tax Cuts, that the GOP is willing to shoot itself in the foot in order to advance their selfish agenda. The more it happens, the more the American people will be fed up with it, and the sooner we can get back to sensible government. The GOP, however, is aware of the same thing, which is why they have hesitated to use it, so far.

 

[Melensdad]

If the GOP uses the "nuclear option", it will be yet another example of how ruthless and dirty the GOP is willing to be compared to their kinder and gentler Dem opposition.

Don, while I oppose the nuclear option, and while I totally agree with you that the Repub's have shot themselves in the foot with many of their actions lately (which is one reason why I was at one time a member of the Libertarian Party and my join them again) I really don't see the Democrats as either kinder or gentler. They are just as good (or bad) at using dirty tricks as the Repubs are and are just as underhanded in their use of the rules. Notice that I am not saying LIBERAL or CONCERVATIVE here, it is not the ideology, but the party actions that I condemn.

 

[OkeeDon]

I really don't see the Democrats as either kinder or gentler. They are just as good (or bad) at using dirty tricks as the Repubs are and are just as underhanded in their use of the rules.

First of all, I will admit they are just as active at using the rules; maybe even more so, at least in the Senate, because no one knows the ins and the outs of the rules as well as Senator Byrd. But, the nuclear option depends on a change in the rules, a change that is a simple power grab by the majority party, and that is something that has not happened often regardless of which party has had the majority. It is the current GOP that is ruthess and willing to cut off their own noses to spite their face, and that is willing to take any tactic in order to achieve their goals, regardless of whether it's for the good of the nation, or not.

They will even take the risk of changing the rules about ending a filibuster (that's what the nuclear option is) in order to achieve their short term goals of getting a greater number of radical judges on the bench, because many of them are life time appointments, and that suits their long term goals. They are NOT concerned with leaving such a drastic rule change in effect if the majority changes to the Dems again, because historically they know -- and depend upon the attitude -- that Dems will NOT be willing to be as ruthless as the current GOP.

It's sad, because the GOP was not always this ruthless and this willing to use any tactic to achieve their goals. It's almost as though they know their days are numbered, so this time, they are throwing caution and good sense to the wind in order to make radical and fundamental changes to the nation, changes that are not easily reversed, before they are thrown out on their butts yet again.

It might be easier for me to digest if I could figure out how those changes benefit the nation as a whole. Sadly, I discern that many, if not most, of the changes benefit only a small minority of the nation. The GOP is guided by those minorities, and they are willing to use any subterfuge, any words, any lies, any claims and any tactics to fool enough people into supporting them while they make their fundametalist changes. What's disappointing to me is that at least for the time being, it's working -- the sheep are following them.

 

[Melensdad]

Well the Supreme Court vote to confirm John Roberts is taking place right now.

Dick Durbin voted NO. No surprise.

Hillary Clinton voted NO. That actually came as a mild surprise. She has been portraying herself as more of a central party moderate Democrat lately.

Lieberman and Lehey, two noted left leaning Dems both voted YES in favor of John Robert's nomination. Jeffers, the independant socialist, voted YES.

One of my Senators, Evan Bayh, did not vote. He asked for the vote to proceed and come back to him. Hmmm? I did not hear what his final vote was. I'm guessing it will be a YES eventhough he has national aspirations.

Generally, the Democrats can be divided into a couple groups.
* Those wanting to go to a national office are voting NO and opposing Robert.
* Those Dems who are from Republican states are voting YES
* The Dems from Democratic states are voting NO.


Total "yea" votes = 78. A few more than I anticipated, but certainly not in line with the historic rubber stamp votes of the past.