War of the Worlds over O’Connor’s successor
By guest blogger Paul Froehlich, State Representative, 56th District
Suppose President Bush nominates someone who is no further to the Right than, say, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is to the Left? Will Democratic senators be as cooperative with Bush’s nominee as Republicans were with Clinton’s?
The vast majority of Republicans voted to confirm Ginsburg in 1993 (the vote was 96-3). My prediction is that Democrats won’t give this President nearly as much slack on Supreme Court nominees as Republicans accorded Clinton. Moreover, I suspect many readers of Dan’s blog hope Democrats will not give Bush the same consideration that Clinton received. Readers may even want a partisan filibuster to stop any conservative, even if she is no more out of the “mainstream” than Ginsburg.
Obviously, the rules have changed since the Clinton years. Just as a change in the filibuster would come back to haunt Republicans some day, so this change in advise and consent of Supreme Court justices will some day affect a Democratic president.
On a legislative note, Rep. John Millner was appointed on July 1 to be Senator Millner, 28th District, filling a vacancy created when Kay Wojcik resigned. As Schaumburg Township Committeeman, I cast 36% of the weighted vote, and I cast it for Millner. I have only 2% of the weighted vote in Sen. Sullivan’s district. The leading contender for appointment to Millner’s vacant House seat is Randy Ramey, Pate’s stepson.
6 comments:
(fr duff)
Weird formatting there.
Anyway, could you identify 3-4 votes that Brennan would have given you that Ginsburg did not? VMI? No, she gutted that school. Carhart? No, she's pro-partial-birth abortion. And so on. What are the cases where the Left said, "Damn it! If only Clinton hadn't nominated that Ruth Bader. Stephen Reinhart would have saved us!!" I'm looking for actual cases. 5-4 decisions. Any?
RBG is a predictable and consistent Liberal vote on the court. Democrats will do all they can to block approval of a Bush nominee who would be a predictable conservative vote. Republicans didn't filibuster Ginsburg.
Let me answer by refering you to DavidNYC over at Kos who starts by stating:
In 1993, when Justice Byron White retired from the bench, President Clinton was thinking of nominating Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who was not necessarily the most popular choice, to fill the seat. Did Clinton try to ram the appointment through? He could have - he still had a pretty sizable majority in the Senate at that point.
But in fact, Clinton decided to discuss the vacancy with the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), who was "not surprised" that the President reached out to him.
He then quotes from Hatches autobiography:
I told him [Clinton] that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.
Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer's name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.
I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease. (Emphasis added.)
That is a better approach for the Democrats and the left to take. That is the better historical reference.
----
On another topic, we did pretty well during a week of promotion over at SoapBlox/Chicago. It's kinda limiting trying to stick to subjects of local interest but we managed to kick up the visits to around 100 per day for the week. That's with a fairly steady amount of promotion over the five days and I don't see us continuing that over the next week. But it can be done. We have about 30 registered members, bumped up a lot by the bit of promotion.
I tell you this even though I know you have a new job that will eat heavily into your blogable time, in the hopes that you will still carve out a teensy bit of time to throw us a bone of a post (with a smattering of meat at least).
Ooops My Bad. I missed the guest blogger byline in the formatting scramble. My previous comment's addendum was meant for DJW. I have been encouraging Dan to post over at SoapBlox/Chicago for a couple of weeks and he has suggested that he might. In anycase, you are welcome as well. Our goal is a community owned and run group blog with scoop capabilities like DailyKos and MyDD of diaries, ratings and comments nested with replies.
Yeah, Bush will probably reach out to a couple of Democrats, see what they think. Give it serious consideration.
Because that's his style. If there's one thing about Bush, its that he doesn't care that much what the base thinks -- he's just trying to do the right thing.
Hm. What was Clinton's majority in his elections? How much election fraud was supsected in 1992 and 1996?
My point is, Clinton had a larger majority. He had his finger on the pulse of the people. Clinton read newspapers and deliberated over important decisions.
I see no evidence that George W. Bush is in touch with the people of the United States. I see no evidence that he tries to inform himself on any issues except to consult with his insulating group. I see no evidence that he carfully considers anything except who will donate to his campaign and who will run the voting machines in Ohio and Florida.
Post a Comment