Anyone Still Think This Deal Was A Good One?
As the battle intensifies over the potential replacement of Justice O’Connor (To date no nominee has been named) there is an interesting piece from the WaPo today. What is equally interesting in it are those that are quoted in it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070501698.html
"In my mind, extraordinary circumstances would include not only extraordinary personal behavior but also extraordinary ideological positions," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 14 who fashioned the agreement, said through a spokesman: "A nominee's political ideology is only relevant if it has been shown to cloud their interpretation of the law. . . . A pattern of irresponsible judgment, where decisions are based on ideology rather than the law, could potentially be 'extraordinary.' "
"It didn't set a standard" for Supreme Court confirmations, Salazar said. "We would leave it up to each person to define what extraordinary circumstance means."
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), however, said judicial activism concerns him more than ideology. "Are they going to be an activist?" Nelson asked rhetorically in discussing what might cause him to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. "Their political philosophy may not bother me at all if they're not going to be an activist."
Nelson seems to be the only one with a clue. Judicial activism is a serious problem for this country right now. If that’s Nelson’s only gripe, and the basis for which he will decide on a nominee, then I have faith he’ll do it responsibly, but I’m not holding my breath. He can be dragged with the rest of the so-called "moderate" Democrats as easily as John McCain was fooled into this idiotic, unconstitutional deal.
That’s right, I’m back to the deal. I warned everyone that this deal was wrong, it was feeble, and it showed to the Democrats that our side was far more willing to compromise rather than fight. A wise man once remarked that "those that are willing to compromise to avoid confrontation will be swallowed up one day." I prefer Machivelli’s assessment: "For those that desire peace, prepare for war."
And a war this will be.
Why? Put simply, the "Seditious Seven," as I like to call them, practically tripped over themselves to seal the deal; a deal that deemed filibusters would only be used in "extraordinary circumstances." Now, many people said that "extraordinary" applied to certain things only. Whether or not they were an "activist jurist", or had past indiscretions, i.e., having committed a crime. "It won’t apply to ideology or personal beliefs," was what I heard repeatedly.
Idiots. Each and every one of you who told me that were morons.
Ideology is exactly what the Democrats are shooting for. They want no one on that Court that has an originalist bone in their body. People like that would actually do their job as a justice, and interpret the law. Ben Nelson doesn’t like activist judges? I have news for him: His colleagues do, and he’ll be crushed in the throng if he doesn’t get into lock-step behind the party when the filibustering begins.
Nice job, Sen. McCain, you thought you had these people locked up, and they’re betrayed, today, by their own words. Way to go. These people were for "sale", and jumped at the chance, but they just couldn’t stay "bought." I saw this on the horizon, and many people watching the Court saw it, too. It’s a shame that the GOP in the Senate keeps playing the roll of Charlie Brown while the Democrat’s Lucy is sitting there...holding the football.
In further news, from the same column in the WaPo, I have seen some disturbing news. Disturbing to me because of what it may spell for this nation.
In an interview published yesterday in USA Today, Bush said it would take "over the course of the next few weeks" and called on interest groups to "tone down the heated rhetoric." He also rejected conservative attacks on Gonzales. "Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush said. "I'm the kind of person, when a friend gets attacked, I don't like it."
Mr. President, I don’t like it when a friend is attacked either. My friends are like my family; no joke and no lie. You attack them, you have a personal problem with me. BUT, the line between friendship and professionalism should never be blurred. We are going after Gonzales because in our educated opinions he’s not the kind of jurist we want on the Supreme Court. In my own estimation, he’s not even an originalist; not even under the most flexible definition.
The Democrats are now backing Gonzales, a surprise to be sure as they were savaging him during his confirmation hearings just a few months ago. They think he’d be great to replace O’Connor. I’ve heard the reasons from them. First, he’s a minority they like. Second, he would render decisions much in the way O’Connor did. Third, he is fully ready to defend Roe. These are three strikes against him, in my book, and that means he’s out, not confirmed. But the Dems want him. We have legitimate gripes against the man. The president swore to put originalists on the bench—those people that will obey and interpret the Constitution properly. Gonzales is not such a nominee.
As for our "heated rhetoric", what else does he expect? Look at it from the POV of a citizen. Your party lacks the fortitude to fight for your nominees. Seven of them defected to enact a piss-poor deal, which resulted in seven other nominees being thrown overboard to the sharks. Now, you’re being warned not to nominate the type of judges you promised you would, and you and your party are cowering in the corner. No, Mr. President, we—the people—will not tone down the rhetoric. I know I’m not. I’m just getting warmed up, Marcie’s sharpening her claws, and we’re coming out with guns blazing.
I want the right person for the right job. If they’re going to the High Court, I want a jurist that knows the Constitution—inside and out—understands it, and will render decisions based on it. I don’t want to see another decision that cites "penumbras, formed by emanations," and I fear that we may end up with such a justice, based solely on what I have seen out of the GOP thus far. They lack the ability to meet the Democrats head-on, and they step away from any sort of protracted fight. If we had used that tactic in World War II, we’d either be speaking German or Japanese. Ohayo gozaimasu! Ikaga desu ka?
If the president can’t this through his skull, fine. His constituency is about to go to the grass-roots level, and the outcome is going to hit him like a brick, thrown through a window just to get his attention. The go along, get along game doesn’t play in Washington. If you’re headed for DC to serve this nation, you better not leave your spine at home, and never let your guard down. The GOP lost their spines about two years ago, and they never had a guard to begin with. Somewhere along the way, these politicians forgot was politics was all about behind the scenes. It’s a bloodsport, and we’re gearing up for the bloodiest fight in our lives.
Publius II
As the battle intensifies over the potential replacement of Justice O’Connor (To date no nominee has been named) there is an interesting piece from the WaPo today. What is equally interesting in it are those that are quoted in it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/05/AR2005070501698.html
"In my mind, extraordinary circumstances would include not only extraordinary personal behavior but also extraordinary ideological positions," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.)
Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 14 who fashioned the agreement, said through a spokesman: "A nominee's political ideology is only relevant if it has been shown to cloud their interpretation of the law. . . . A pattern of irresponsible judgment, where decisions are based on ideology rather than the law, could potentially be 'extraordinary.' "
"It didn't set a standard" for Supreme Court confirmations, Salazar said. "We would leave it up to each person to define what extraordinary circumstance means."
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), however, said judicial activism concerns him more than ideology. "Are they going to be an activist?" Nelson asked rhetorically in discussing what might cause him to filibuster a Supreme Court nominee. "Their political philosophy may not bother me at all if they're not going to be an activist."
Nelson seems to be the only one with a clue. Judicial activism is a serious problem for this country right now. If that’s Nelson’s only gripe, and the basis for which he will decide on a nominee, then I have faith he’ll do it responsibly, but I’m not holding my breath. He can be dragged with the rest of the so-called "moderate" Democrats as easily as John McCain was fooled into this idiotic, unconstitutional deal.
That’s right, I’m back to the deal. I warned everyone that this deal was wrong, it was feeble, and it showed to the Democrats that our side was far more willing to compromise rather than fight. A wise man once remarked that "those that are willing to compromise to avoid confrontation will be swallowed up one day." I prefer Machivelli’s assessment: "For those that desire peace, prepare for war."
And a war this will be.
Why? Put simply, the "Seditious Seven," as I like to call them, practically tripped over themselves to seal the deal; a deal that deemed filibusters would only be used in "extraordinary circumstances." Now, many people said that "extraordinary" applied to certain things only. Whether or not they were an "activist jurist", or had past indiscretions, i.e., having committed a crime. "It won’t apply to ideology or personal beliefs," was what I heard repeatedly.
Idiots. Each and every one of you who told me that were morons.
Ideology is exactly what the Democrats are shooting for. They want no one on that Court that has an originalist bone in their body. People like that would actually do their job as a justice, and interpret the law. Ben Nelson doesn’t like activist judges? I have news for him: His colleagues do, and he’ll be crushed in the throng if he doesn’t get into lock-step behind the party when the filibustering begins.
Nice job, Sen. McCain, you thought you had these people locked up, and they’re betrayed, today, by their own words. Way to go. These people were for "sale", and jumped at the chance, but they just couldn’t stay "bought." I saw this on the horizon, and many people watching the Court saw it, too. It’s a shame that the GOP in the Senate keeps playing the roll of Charlie Brown while the Democrat’s Lucy is sitting there...holding the football.
In further news, from the same column in the WaPo, I have seen some disturbing news. Disturbing to me because of what it may spell for this nation.
In an interview published yesterday in USA Today, Bush said it would take "over the course of the next few weeks" and called on interest groups to "tone down the heated rhetoric." He also rejected conservative attacks on Gonzales. "Al Gonzales is a great friend of mine," Bush said. "I'm the kind of person, when a friend gets attacked, I don't like it."
Mr. President, I don’t like it when a friend is attacked either. My friends are like my family; no joke and no lie. You attack them, you have a personal problem with me. BUT, the line between friendship and professionalism should never be blurred. We are going after Gonzales because in our educated opinions he’s not the kind of jurist we want on the Supreme Court. In my own estimation, he’s not even an originalist; not even under the most flexible definition.
The Democrats are now backing Gonzales, a surprise to be sure as they were savaging him during his confirmation hearings just a few months ago. They think he’d be great to replace O’Connor. I’ve heard the reasons from them. First, he’s a minority they like. Second, he would render decisions much in the way O’Connor did. Third, he is fully ready to defend Roe. These are three strikes against him, in my book, and that means he’s out, not confirmed. But the Dems want him. We have legitimate gripes against the man. The president swore to put originalists on the bench—those people that will obey and interpret the Constitution properly. Gonzales is not such a nominee.
As for our "heated rhetoric", what else does he expect? Look at it from the POV of a citizen. Your party lacks the fortitude to fight for your nominees. Seven of them defected to enact a piss-poor deal, which resulted in seven other nominees being thrown overboard to the sharks. Now, you’re being warned not to nominate the type of judges you promised you would, and you and your party are cowering in the corner. No, Mr. President, we—the people—will not tone down the rhetoric. I know I’m not. I’m just getting warmed up, Marcie’s sharpening her claws, and we’re coming out with guns blazing.
I want the right person for the right job. If they’re going to the High Court, I want a jurist that knows the Constitution—inside and out—understands it, and will render decisions based on it. I don’t want to see another decision that cites "penumbras, formed by emanations," and I fear that we may end up with such a justice, based solely on what I have seen out of the GOP thus far. They lack the ability to meet the Democrats head-on, and they step away from any sort of protracted fight. If we had used that tactic in World War II, we’d either be speaking German or Japanese. Ohayo gozaimasu! Ikaga desu ka?
If the president can’t this through his skull, fine. His constituency is about to go to the grass-roots level, and the outcome is going to hit him like a brick, thrown through a window just to get his attention. The go along, get along game doesn’t play in Washington. If you’re headed for DC to serve this nation, you better not leave your spine at home, and never let your guard down. The GOP lost their spines about two years ago, and they never had a guard to begin with. Somewhere along the way, these politicians forgot was politics was all about behind the scenes. It’s a bloodsport, and we’re gearing up for the bloodiest fight in our lives.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 5:55 PM
3 Comments:
Publius,
Those who had a firm grasp of the Constitution knew the deal was not only wrong, but it was bad. The entirety of the deal, simply put, puts those fourteen senators in the proverbial "cat-bird" seat. They can steer the Senate in any direction they want to, provided "extraordinary circumstances" were met.
I knew that when it wasn't defined in the deal that such circumstances would include ideology and personal beliefs. Nothing has changed with these people; that is a point that is obvious to us, but apparently missed by the masses, and by the Republicans in the Senate.
Mistress Pundit
Publius,
An addendum, please?
You were quite correct in the idea of "buying and selling" amongst the Republicans and Democrats. The very first thing that caught my attention in the deal is the definition of "extraordinary circumstances." There was none provided.
I believe the Democrats would figure that their broad scope of such an incident would cover them, and include their seven allies. But as Bunny pointed out later, even Graham is considering a defection back to the fold if the filibuster is over "ideology." We shall see.
As they say, "Talk is cheap." I have heard that four of the seven--DeWine, Graham, Collins, and Warner--would go back to Frist's side if ideology is onvolved in the Democrat's "extraordinary circumstances."
And based on Bunny's post, I can assume only what most have already: They will filibuster anyone that either--
A) Anyone who believes Roe v. Wade is returned to the hands of the people, because it will be soundly defeated in an least 35-40 states, or
B) Anyone who believes the Constitution is the ultimate authority that judges answer to, and if something isn't there, it goes back to where it came from.
They do not "invent" law to support it, as they did in many cases.
Mistress Pundit
My opinion of the seven seditious traitors + seven has not changed. They took control of the senate. I didn't expect the democrats would punish their seven but I did expect something from the republicans. I suggested a number of sanctions and Frist has ignored them all, even taking away their parking spaces. That told me a lot. It seems that the republicans and the President are satisfied the nominations went through. I would just as soon they didn't under these circumstances. I was hoping that one, just one, nominee would hold a press conference declining the appointment. I call that honor or true grit. Rawriter
Post a Comment
<< Home