July 01, 2005
The Supreme Court - Uniter or Divider
from - smijer
Bush has proven to be a hard-liner and divider since he ran as a moderate uniter five years ago. Now that the mixed-record, Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement, the President has a chance to act presidential. Or petty.
I hope he chooses the former. There are plenty of moderates and conservatives out there who respect the rule of law, and subscribe to relatively constructivist philosophies of interpretation, but who are not wild-eyed radicals working out of James Dobson's pocket (For Instance). So the question of the hour is, will it be one of them, or will the nominee be covered in Dobson's pocket lint?
I'll be interested to see how it plays out.
::Posted by smijer at July 1, 2005 04:52 PM
Gee, presidential or petty? Wonder which way he'll go? Hmmm. I'm going to go with "petty."
|
Posted by fdtate on July 1, 2005 08:34 PM Link to comment |
I figure he will choose the most polarizing candidate he can find. I would guess one of the most wild-eyed radicals working out of James Dobson's pocket as he can find for two reasons
1) it energizes his most steadfast consituency, the religious right
2) as long as the two sides are raising hell about a Supreme Court appointment they are not watching the mess in the Middle East.
A missing teenager in Aruba and an occasional shark attack in Florida just ain't gettin' the job done when it comes to media diversion.
|
|
Posted by Buck on July 2, 2005 04:50 PM Link to comment |
Presidential or petty? Please.
If the Democrats had one the 2004 election and we're in this position would the President act "Presidential or petty"? Please. What an absolutely silly position.
Ed Prado looks like he would be an excellent nomination, and I would definitely prefer him over a James Dobson recommendation, but is W being petty if he makes a nomination that is line with both his beliefs and those of the majority of the people that elected W to be president in the first place? Don't think so.
A better question is when is the Senate going to stop being petty? If W did nominate Prado would the Senate confirm or complain that Prado is to conservative? Wouldn't it be wonderful if the Senate finally started doing their job of advise and consent?
m
|
|
Posted by m on July 4, 2005 12:25 PM Link to comment |
but is W being petty if he makes a nomination that is line with both his beliefs and those of the majority of the people that elected W to be president in the first place?
Well, when "his beliefs" are divide and conquer - yes on that part... And what are you callnig the "majority" of the people that elected W president? The religious right is about a third of the people who voted for him, and half the country voted against them... It is petty to continue to divide by playing to that base of religious extremists. It's presidential to nominate someone who is acceptable to the broad majority of Americans.
If he does the former, I hope Dems and moderates in the Senate will fight him tooth and nail. If he does the latter, and the Dems in the Senate mount an obstructionist defense, then I will join your criticism of them. I personally think they would like to be presented someone who they can confirm without betraying their own constituents.
And by the way "advice and consent" doesn't just mean "rubber stamp approval".
|
|
Posted by smijer on July 4, 2005 01:23 PM Link to comment |
Smijer,
It is true that advise and consent doesn't mean "rubber stamp approval", but it doesn't mean "hold every thing up in committee for as long as possible -- like years -- and then filibuster those that do make it out of committee"
Bushes confirmations percentages:
Harry Truman 100%
Dwight Eisenhower 92.3%
John Kennedy 77.3%
Lyndon Johnson 96.2%
Richard Nixon 87%
Gerald Ford 81.8%
Jimmy Carter 100%
Ronald Reagan 95%
G.H.W. Bush 95.7%
Bill Clinton 86.4%
George Bush 53.1%
Like I said, the Democrats in the Senate are already being petty.
m
|
|
Posted by m on July 4, 2005 06:08 PM Link to comment |
Those raw numbers don't tell the whole story. If I were President, I could make the senate look "petty" by nominating Mickey Mouse and the other Disney characters (and re-nominating them: your numbers include renominations. Bush had 78.1 % of individual justices confirmed, just shy of Clinton's 84.0%). They'd certainly be rejected, or - if my party had a less-than-filibuster-proof majority, they'd be filibustered. And wouldn't they be petty for not letting me have any cartoon characters on the courts?
Clinton had 84.0% of his justices confirmed, which was far less than Reagan or Carter - but it wasn't like he didn't try to find nominees acceptable to the full senate. He consulted with Orrin Hatch about who would be acceptable, and who would draw a fight. If Bush is doing that, it is so he can be sure not to nominate anyone who is acceptable to the full senate. That's what's petty: nominating and renominating people that he knows that large numbers of senators find have big problems with. Take, for instance, the 10 that were filibustered by the Democrats in his first term. His first move in his second term was to resubmit those same nominations. Why would he do that, except to tell those of us who are represented by those senators that our vote doesn't count? Why would he do that except out of pettiness? Why is it petty for the Senate to reject those justices when they feel their constituents would be appalled at them?
|
|
Posted by smijer on July 4, 2005 08:06 PM Link to comment |
