Jewel

I'm going to assume you meant to ask me if I was only opposed to right wing activist judges.

I would prefer moderate to liberal judges be appointed to the bench rather than a conservative or an activist of any stripe. The less judicial activism there is going on, the better off the people are. Congress, under any administration, is not obligated to let the president appoint judges who are not likely to give everyone equal protection under the law.

Toto

Interesting article from the Economist speculates that a Supreme Court appointment could be a wedge issue that destroys the Republican coalition:

Toto

Right Wing Objects to Gonzales as a Justice {LA Times requires free registration}

fromtheright

themistocles

Senate is a rubber stamp, only there for the sake of checks and balances, not to void the will of the voters.

I'm probably going to kick myself for saying this when I am quoted down the road, but I don't believe that the Senate is to be a rubber stamp. For conservatives who argue that, they should be prepared to swallow their words when it is liberals being named. Actually, we were, and Republicans kept Clinton's appointments from seeing the light of day. I do think that the Senate, whether Republican or Democrat, should give due debate, in committee and on the floor, but that ultimately any nominee should have their name put to a vote on the floor, and let the voters hold their Senators accountable (though, actually, I am quite cynical about the sneeze-length memory of American voters).

Conservatives/Republicans should be careful about advocating a rubber stamp Senate as with many other things, and think about the shoe being on the other foot. Another example is term limits. It would be great to support term limits and thereby get rid of a Robert Byrd or a Diane Feinstein, but it would also mean losing a Henry Hyde (whom I respect for his principled opposition to term limits, among other things) or a B-1 Bob Dornan.

I would add that it is absolutely disingenuous for conservatives to accuse liberals of racial bias in their opposition to Gonzales. I was irritated and embarrassed as a conservative to hear Sean Hannity (with whom I agree mostly but find his knowledge of conservativism to be rather shallow) so accuse liberals who obviously fear that Gonzales will be a conservative vote in the Appeals Court but are not racially motivated. Dishonest politics irritates me to no end, especially from those on my side--but neither side is pure. I expect it from Democats, as I suppose many of you expect if from Republicans, but I would like my own side to hold a higher standard.


(Edited for spelling)

pug846

As a republican, you must be irritated often.

I do find it ironic that Republican leadership will go to great lengths to appoint minorities in high positions—some of whom aren’t qualified (See e.g., Clarence Thomas)—but oppose affirmative action because race just doesn’t matter. I’m sure once the rest of the Republican Party finds out Gonzales is a minority who has his own independent thoughts now and again (i.e., not Clarence Thomas), then they will find another “colored” who will do their biding.

(As a complete aside, I damn near shit myself from laughing when I read Rehnquist’s dissent in the Michigan law school case blasting the majority for its “unprecedented use” of the 14th Amendment. Hello pot. This is Kettle. Why are you black? Oh yeah, I forgot. Unprecedented use of the 14th amendment is only justifiable when the Presidential election is at stake.)

Toto

So who thinks that all this talk about Gonzales being too "liberal" is just a ploy to get him through the Senate vote?

Stephen Maturin

I agree, FTR. In Hamilton's words:

Federalist No. 76.

In other words, "rubber stamp", my narrow lilywhite ass.

As for the Senate's internal rules regarding filibuster and cloture, there's a move afoot to bring all that to an end, at least in the advice-and-consent department. Senate Resolution 138 would reduce the sixty-vote requirement for cloture a little at a time until a simple majoity vote would be enough to shut down a filibuster. The resolution passed the Senate Rules Committee today by a ten-zip vote. If passed by the full Senate, the resolution will mean the end of the ongoing filibusters against the Owen and Estrada nominations.

beejay

Just to amplify, the 10 votes were Republican. The 9 Democrats on the committee were not present for the vote.

Reuters news story

Does anyone doubt, that if the rules on filibuster were to pass, that the next time there was a Democratic President and Democratic Senate, the Republicans would quickly see how the filibuster was in the hallowed tradition of the nation?

The hypocrisy is amazing.

Jewel

I admit, the thought has crossed my mind. I haven't done any reading on him yet, though, so I've tried to keep my paranoia in check.

Stephen Maturin

Boy howdy, isn't that the truth! I kinda doubt that this resolution is going anywhere. Although sixty votes are enough to end most filibusters, Senate Rule XXII requires the concurrence of "two-thirds of the Senators present and voting" to end a filibuster on rules change. So far the Republicans haven't been able to muster the sixty votes needed to shut down the Estrada and Owen filibusters. That being true, it's tough to see how they'll get the sixty-seven votes needed kill a filibuster on the proposed rule change.

So, it looks like we'll be seeing a filibuster on a rule amendment designed to end two ongoing filibusters and foreclose future filibusters on Bush appointees. Man, oh man, what a mess.