White House May Consult on Supreme Court

[Desertdog]

I hope this is just a smoke-screen. If it is true it will sure make me mad. :banghead: I will write the president, anyway.

White House May Consult on Supreme Court
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14239-2003Jun19.html
By JESSE J. HOLLAND
The Associated Press
Thursday, June 19, 2003; 8:03 PM


WASHINGTON - The White House on Thursday reopened the door to possible consultations with Senate Democrats on a Supreme Court nomination if a vacancy occurs this summer, one day after President Bush's spokesman seemed to rule out the idea.

White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales said "final decisions regarding appropriate consultations have not been made," in the latest in a flurry of letters between the Bush administration and Senate Democrats about a possible nomination to the nation's highest court.

"In short, the White House is and remains willing to meet and listen to your thoughts and concerns, as well as those of your colleagues," said Gonzales, who has offered to meet personally with Senate Democrats.

Several Senate Democrats recently sent letters to the White House asking for Bush to meet with Senate leaders from both parties to talk about possible nominations and ways to avoid a bruising battle in the Senate.

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer seemed to rule the idea out completely on Wednesday, telling reporters that Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and other Senate Democrats had "come up with a novel new approach of how the Constitution guides the appointment process."

But on Thursday, Gonzales pointed out that "Fleischer did not say who President Bush would consult with or receive advice from in the event of a Supreme Court vacancy and certainly did not foreclose the possibility that senators might be consulted."

This came in a letter to Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, and the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. That committee would be the first one to vet any possible nomination.

Bush would decide on a potential replacement for any Supreme Court justice, but Republicans only control the Senate by two votes - there are 51 Republicans, 48 Democrats and one independent senator.

That means Democrats can block any potential Supreme Court nominee through a filibuster if they can get 40 of their members to agree.

"It's encouraging that the president appears ready to meet with a bipartisan group of senators and Senate Democratic leadership if a Supreme Court vacancy occurs," Daschle spokeswoman Ranit Schmelzer said.

Both parties are bracing for a potentially huge summer confirmation fight, given close GOP control over the Senate and the fact that Bush's court selections could make a huge difference on many crucial social issues for years to come - including abortion, the death penalty and racial questions.

There has been rising speculation that Bush may soon have an opportunity to make his first Supreme Court nomination, possibly even two.

None of the nine current justices has announced plans to retire, but Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 78, and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, 73, are considered the most likely possibilities.

Despite the widespread speculation, neither Rehnquist nor O'Connor have given any public clues that retirement announcements were imminent.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

He'd better not screw this one up. I consider SCOTUS appointments the single most important thing a President does during his term in office. He's already licked the Demorats boots on just about everthing else. No president is going to get re-elected without his base, and I think if he gives in to their threats (that's exactly what they are), he will be nothing but a spineless jellyfish not fit to hold that office!

 

[Kharn]

"Hey Frist, its W, are you ready to have some fun? I'm nominating Bork tomorrow."
Now thats the way to 'consult' the senate, especially if Bork didnt care if he got confirmed or not and just mopped the floor with the Democrats and their agendas on CSpan2.

Kharn

 

[Waitone]

How can one man stare down the entire world when it comes to dealing with islamofascist terrorists, then turn right around lick the boots of the Democrat party leaders. . . . .Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, et al?

I guess the man wants to be president so bad he'll jettison principal (well, as much as any politician can have).

Hey, Dubya! You might not have any limits to your boot lickin', but I assure you your voters do. You would be well advised to grow a spine. Trent Lott earned my unending contempt for his inability to stand for anything. Seems Trent is one of your close advisors.

Buck up, man, and stand for something!

 

[jimpeel]

 

[Preacherman]

Guys, guys, guys...

Remember that "politics is the art of the possible". Bush CANNOT, in the present situation, force his ideal nominees through the Senate confirmation process. They'd be filibustered to death. He has two options:

1. Nominate candidates acceptable to at least some Democrats, so as to get over the 60-vote margin needed to break a filibuster;

2. Wait for the Senate to change its rules to prevent a filibuster being used to stop judicial nominees receiving a full Senate vote (which is being talked about now, but is a two-edged sword: if the rules are changed, this will allow a narrowly Democratic Senate in the future to impose its liberal, left-wing judicial nominees on us, without the other side being able to block them. Supreme Court Justice Feinstein, anyone? Schumer? Klinton? )

He's walking a political tightrope. It's no good saying:

No president is going to get re-elected without his base, and I think if he gives in to their threats (that's exactly what they are), he will be nothing but a spineless jellyfish not fit to hold that office!

or:

How can one man stare down the entire world when it comes to dealing with islamofascist terrorists, then turn right around lick the boots of the Democrat party leaders. . . . .Pat Leahy, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle, et al?

Folks, this is the REALITY of the political system at the moment. Bush can stand on principle, nominate another Robert Bork (who would have made a wonderful Supreme Court justice, IMHO), and watch his candidate crash and burn: or he can nominate someone more centrist, who will attract nine Democratic votes and make it over the filibuster hurdle. He has to choose one of those two options (barring a rule change, as discussed). Which of them do you think will be more productive? Which of them will be better for the nation as a whole?

 

[Sergeant Bob]

Remember that "politics is the art of the possible".

Campaign Finance reform was possible.
Ted "The Swimmer's" education bill was possible.
The Patriot Act was possible.
The Patriot Act II is possible.
Extension of the AWB is possible.
Amnesty for all illegal immigrant Mexicans is possible.
Did I forget any?

I think Bush licking their boots yet one more time is possible.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Frist's idea of changing the senate rules frightens me. This isn't the first time that a frustrated senate leader has proposed a change in rules: the last time came during a Democrat-dominated legislature. An old cliche still rings true: what's good for the goose...

The Republicans have never been good at this game, and they're certainly not good at it now. Their mistake has been to allow the senate to confirm "moderate" judicial nominees while fighting for an end to a filibuster on two nominees.

The strategy should be that all nominees receive a vote, or none at all. With Bush getting more judicial nominees through the senate than previous presidents, it makes the public think that Estrada and Owens are indeed too "right wing" for the country.

GW has shown some remarkable political skills. He's also caved in to the most socialist members of the senate on landmark legislation. Witness the Ted Kennedy medicare drug plan being passed. This would have been unthinkable just two years ago. And, as usual, the Republicans thought that they could placate the likes of Kennedy by passing his bill. Instead, Kennedy has referred to the bill as a "down payment" on a future expansion.

It's time for the Republicans to stick to principle, and shout from the rooftops when the likes of Kennedy & Co. hold this country hostage. If the Repub's can't figure out how to get things done with control of the White House and both houses of congress, what the hell are they doing in power?

 

[Mr. James]

Monkeyleg,

Point taken, but what principle?

See Sergeant Bob's post.

The Republicans and our C-I-C are planning to add a $400 billion dollar entitlement - non-discretionary, will-pay-at-any-cost, entitlement - which covers a population of aging which will explode in the next 15 to 20 years, or so. It is, indeed, a down payment. Because we're feeding an alligator our legs and hoping it'll be satisfied.

Bush's drug plan is the most baneful proposal in health care since the Medicare act of 1965. It will be the death of real pharmaceutical innovation in this country.

Bomb Canada.

 

[Monkeyleg]

No argument here, Mr. James.

I am far from wealthy, and I'm sure that this new scheme would benefit me in a decade or so. But I cannot take other people's money. If I could do so, I would use the firearms skills that I have to become another John Dillinger. That, at least, would seem more honorable.

As to Kennedy's comments, it's quite clear that this new Medicare deal isn't over with. He wants more. Just as GW thought that he had satiated Teddy's thirst for more socialism with the education plan, Kennedy has merely used this bit of "bi-partisanship" to build on his own vision of America. But, as many have pointed out, the socialists in this country refuse to recognize that the Soviet plan was doomed; rather, they think that the wrong leaders controlled it. Enter Ted Kennedy.

The level of my disappointment with the Repub's has never been lower. Sergeant Bob may refer to it as the "art of what's possible," but I'm afraid that this is just a replay of Clinton's old triangulation strategy. GW and the Repub's are merely trying to steal the Democrat's issues for the 2004 elections.

If this were about, say, free balloons for kids on the first day of kindergarten, I'd go along with it, grudgingly. But they're selling everything possible just to win the next election. Well, they're not really selling it, since "selling" implies that they're giving up something. They're not. We are.

Political times have changed since Reagan took office in 1980 and pledged to reduce government and grow the private sector. It's plausible that his plans couldn't be implemented today.

But I believe with all my heart and soul that GW has the US public's trust, and that he can do what even Reagan could not. And if he just horse-trades deals with the likes of another bloated Kennedy, he has squandered an enormous political war chest.

Since the 2002 elections, the media pundits and Democrat strategists have said that the Dem's just didn't get their message out to the public. They did, but the public wasn't buying it.

The same can be said right now about the Repub's. Their message of self-reliance, national security, lower taxation, growth through initiative, personal responsibility, and economic freedom should ring a bell with every voter.

The problem is that the Repub's are afraid that the Dem's will attack them on those very ideas that most tax-paying Americans believe to be true.

 

[Sergeant Bob]

The level of my disappointment with the Repub's has never been lower. Sergeant Bob (strike Sgt Bob, insert Preacherman) may refer to it as the "art of what's possible, " but I'm afraid that this is just a replay of Clinton's old triangulation strategy.

Preacherman said

Remember that "politics is the art of the possible".

I think Monkeyleg and Mr. James are pretty much on the same page here no? No arguement from my side.

GW and the Repub's are merely trying to steal the Democrat's issues for the 2004 elections.

It's kind of like stealing money from someone by giving them $100.
He's done more to advance the Dem's agenda in 2 1/2 years than Clinton did in eight!!!
It does no good to win if you have already abandoned all your principles.

 

[Waitone]

Remember that "politics is the art of the possible". Bush CANNOT, in the present situation, force his ideal nominees through the Senate confirmation process. They'd be filibustered to death. He has two options

Wrong! There is a third option that Frist has taken off the table no doubt at Dubya's instruction. Option 3 is to actually stand and fight.

Any one of several modes of battle could be engaged but Frist has deemed none will be used.

1>Change the supermajority rules and go for a simple up or down vote for all judicials appointees. Spinelessrepublicans are afraid of the other shoe syndrome. They also seem to be afraid of their own shadow. This is an attitude typical of people who are clearly uncomfortable exercising power. They are afraid of what Democrats say and afraid of what Democrats may do in the future. In my view this is the perfect picture of what it means to be "spineless."

2>Force an honest to goodness fiibuster complete with cots and port-a-johns. Democrats what to obstruct? Fine let them spin 24 hour coverage to their heart's content. Let them explain to their voters why they are blocking judges getting to work and why congress is doing nothing but keeping judges from getting to work.

3>Start dropping recess appointment into the very positions being filibustered. Bush doesn't have to use his current appointees. He just needs to get judges to the bench. I can think of nothing more entertaining than the idea of Robert Bork getting a recess appointment to the bench. Talk about listening to the heathen rage! Then the following week another recess appointee is announced. Meanwhile private phone conversations are taking place. . . ."Hey guys. This thing can end just as soon as you want it ended. Be reasonable and do it my way."

The problem now is there is no political cost being extracted from the Democrats for their tactics. Fact is, they see it as a win and are therefore expanding the filibuster list. Meanwhile the republicans are doing nothing. . . . . . .

 

[MarkDido]

<<2>Force an honest to goodness fiibuster complete with cots and port-a-johns. Democrats what to obstruct? Fine let them spin 24 hour coverage to their heart's content. Let them explain to their voters why they are blocking judges getting to work and why congress is doing nothing but keeping judges from getting to work>>

I'm all for this approach. Let the Democrats conduct an actual fililbuster.

No, wait... that would interfere with their $5.00 congressional barber shop haircuts and their double-mocha frappes. Can't have that!