« Judiciary
May 7, 2008
Right on Voter ID: Those People 'Should Not Be Voting Anyway'
The Supreme Court’s decision upholding Indiana’s partisan voter-ID law, like other recent cases with conservative outcomes, received generous praise from the Right. “This victory continues conservatives’ good run of Supreme Court decisions dating back to last term,” wrote Human Events columnist Sean Trende, who called the case evidence that John Roberts’s appointment as Chief Justice “mark[ed] a sea change” in pulling the court “rightward.”
Paul Weyrich praised the Court and called objections to the law—which closes access to the ballot box for many otherwise eligible voters, primarily minorities and the elderly, in pursuit of the phantom threat of voter fraud—“overblown and sensational,” adding, “We do not compel people to vote.” (As Weyrich said in 1980, “I don't want everybody to vote. … [O]ur leverage in the elections quite candidly goes up as the voting populace goes down.”)
And Gary Bauer boldly asserted that “all citizens have photo I.D.s, and the only people who don’t are illegal aliens, who are, by definition, not allowed to vote. The only ones disenfranchised by the photo I.D. requirement are those who should not be voting anyway.”
Of course, by the time Bauer sent that remarkable claim out to his e-mail list, the AP was already reporting on some of these people he said “should not be voting”:
About 12 Indiana nuns were turned away Tuesday from a polling place by a fellow sister because they didn't have state or federal identification bearing a photograph. …
The nuns, all in their 80s or 90s, didn't get one but came to the precinct anyway.
"One came down this morning, and she was 98, and she said, 'I don't want to go do that,'" Sister McGuire said. Some showed up with outdated passports. None of them drives.
They weren't given provisional ballots because it would be impossible to get them to a motor vehicle branch and back within the 10 days allotted by the law, Sister McGuire said. "You have to remember that some of these ladies don't walk well. They're in wheelchairs or on walkers or electric carts."
Posted by Ezra at 4:42 PM | Permalink
May 6, 2008
Petty, Partisan, and Disingenuous
In delivering his “if you liked Bush’s judicial nominees, you’re going to love mine” speech today, John McCain blasted Democratic “obstruction” of President Bush’s nominees and held himself up as a paragon of virtue and integrity:
Of course, in the daily routine of Senate obstructionism, presidential nominees to the lower courts are now lucky if they get a hearing at all. These courts were created long ago by the Congress itself, on what then seemed the safe assumption that future Senates would attend to their duty to fill them with qualified men and women nominated by the president. Yet at this moment there are 31 nominations pending, including several for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that serves North Carolina. Because there are so many cases with no judges to hear them, a "judicial emergency" has been declared here by the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts. And a third of the entire Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is vacant. But the alarm has yet to sound for the Senate majority leadership. Their idea of a judicial emergency is the possible confirmation of any judge who doesn't meet their own narrow tests of party and ideology. They want federal judges who will push the limits of constitutional law, and, to this end, they have pushed the limits of Senate rules and simple courtesy.
…
And yet when President Bill Clinton nominated Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsberg to serve on the high court, I voted for their confirmation, as did all but a few of my fellow Republicans. Why? For the simple reason that the nominees were qualified, and it would have been petty, and partisan, and disingenuous to insist otherwise. Those nominees represented the considered judgment of the president of the United States. And under our Constitution, it is the president's call to make.
So, to hear McCain tell it, nobody but him in the Senate understands “simple courtesy” or the basic rule that senators should defer to the president on nominations or that voting against a nominee is “petty, partisan, and disingenuous.”
It is not surprising that McCain would use this opportunity to attack the Democrats on this issue – after all, he is trying to win over the Right and, as we all know, they just love to fight over judicial nominations.
Of course, it is not as if Republicans have been good stewards of the confirmation process, as McCain realized back before he was busy pandering for right-wing votes:
“We Republicans are not blameless here,” McCain told me. “For all intents and purposes, we filibustered Clinton’s judges, by not letting them out of committee.”
Nor has McCain always upheld his own standard of deferring to the president, as evidenced by his own voting record during the Clinton administration:
Motion to Invoke Cloture on the Nomination of H. Lee Sarokin to be United States Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit: McCain - Nay
On the Confirmation of H. Lee Sarokin: McCain - Nay
On the Confirmation of Rosemary Barkett to be U.S. Circuit Judge for 11th Circuit: McCain - Nay
On the Confirmation of William A. Fletcher to be U.S. Circuit Judge for 9th Circuit: McCain - Nay
On the Confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to be U.S. Circuit Judge for 2nd Circuit: McCain - Nay
On the Confirmation of Ronnie L. White to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri: McCain - Nay
On the Confirmation of Ann L. Aiken to be US District Judge for the OR District: McCain - Nay
On the Confirmation of Susan Oki Mollway to be U.S. Dist. Judge Central Dist. Hawaii: McCain - Nay
On the Confirmation of James J. Brady to be United States District Judge Middle District of Louisiana: McCain - Nay
Of course, all of these Clinton nominees must have been unqualified because otherwise it would have been petty, partisan, and disingenuous of McCain to have voted against them.
Or perhaps McCain only applies this standard to Supreme Court nominations, which would explain his gushing support of Robert Bork.
Posted by Kyle at 4:36 PM | Permalink
Give ‘Em What They Want, John
As John McCain prepares to deliver his remarks on the future of the judiciary today in North Carolina, it looks like he will be under some close scrutiny from the Right, who are growing fed up with his seeming reluctance to throw them red meat:
In town-hall meetings, Sen. McCain makes a point to explain his positions on terrorism, taxes, the economy, energy and health care. But in his prepared remarks, he never mentions abortion, same-sex marriage, judges or gun rights. When asked, he often responds quickly and moves on.
"Imagine if you were an economic conservative and someone never talked about tax policy unless they were asked about it," said Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at the Family Research Council, a conservative advocacy group focused on social issues.
Asked whether she thinks Sen. McCain really cares about the abortion issue, she said, "I don't know, and that's his problem."
As such, many of them are launching a campaign to make the issue of judges a centerpiece of the upcoming election:
Conservative leaders also want the party to embrace language that would instruct Senate leaders to make the confirmation of nominees a higher priority. Conservatives say Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) must press Democrats harder to confirm several controversial nominees, such as D.C. Circuit Court nominee Peter Keisler and 4th Circuit Court nominee Robert Conrad Jr.
Manuel Miranda, a former aide to ex-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), circulated a draft Monday of principles for the GOP platform committee to consider. Several conservative leaders quickly endorsed it.
Paul Weyrich, chairman of the conservative Free Congress Foundation, said he supports including the language on judicial nominees in the party platform.
“I think the more we particularize that whole issue, the more people focus on the topic,” Weyrich said. Making detailed guidelines on judicial nominees part of the platform would also help social conservatives hold McCain to account if he is elected president.
“You can compare what the party says with any subsequent action by its nominees,” said Weyrich.
And while McCain is delivering his remarks, Republican National Committee officials will be courting right-wing leaders on this effort having “invited social conservative leaders based in and around Washington, D.C., to attend a meeting Tuesday morning where former Sen. Dan Coats (R-Ind.) will give them a preview of McCain’s remarks.”
Already McCain surrogate Sen. Sam Brownback is making the rounds assuring the Right that it’ll like what it hears and, judging by excerpts of McCain's remarks and preliminary press coverage, it certainly looks like that will be the case:
Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Tuesday he would appoint judges in the mold of conservatives John Roberts, Samuel Alito and former Chief Justice William Rehnquist if he were elected in November.
In an excerpt from a speech McCain was to give in Winston-Salem on Tuesday, the Arizona senator said he would "look for accomplished men and women with a proven record of excellence in the law, and a proven commitment to judicial restraint."
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist -- jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference," McCain said.
In fact, so sure is the McCain camp that this speech will win over the Right that it is reaching out to them via GOPUSA seeking donations:
We have a lot at stake in this presidential election. As a nation, we face many challenges that will require real leadership from our next president. I have said before that this election will be about the big things, not the small things, and I write to you today about one big issue in particular - the future of the U.S. Supreme Court. If one of my Democratic opponents is elected in November, you can rest assured that given the opportunity to appoint judges, they will appoint those who make law with disregard for the will of the people.
There may be at least two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court during the next presidential term. As president, I will ensure that only those judges with a strict interpretation of the Constitution of the United States are appointed. I will nominate judges who understand that their role is to faithfully apply the law as written, not impose their opinions through judicial fiat.
If you want judges who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and who do not legislate from the bench to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, then I ask that you join my campaign for president today by making a financial contribution.
Posted by Kyle at 9:53 AM | Permalink
May 5, 2008
Sekulow Recalls John Roberts as Key Anti-Abortion Ally
During the debate over John Roberts’s confirmation as Chief Justice three years ago, many of his proponents claimed that his experience as a right-wing legal advocate for Republican administrations was totally irrelevant in gauging the agenda he would bring to the Supreme Court. That was just a job, Americans were told, and the nominee was presented as an uninterested “umpire” who had practically never taken a position on anything at all.
At the same time, backers of Roberts assured the Religious Right that he would be their champion. For example, Jay Sekulow—head of Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice and one of the White House’s key liaisons to the far Right—felt confident enough to assert that “he knew that Judge Roberts's heart was in it. ‘He doesn't argue just to argue.’”
Last month, speaking to an anti-abortion group in Memphis, Sekulow related a few more details about why he’d felt so confident in Roberts:
In the early 1990s, Sekulow was representing the militant anti-abortion activists Operation Rescue in a case before the Supreme Court over physically blocking access to clinics (Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic). Meanwhile, Operation Rescue was organizing more blockades in Wichita, Kansas, and planning more large protests.
According to Sekulow, Roberts—then deputy solicitor general—called him up and hatched a strategy: In the upcoming protest in Wichita, don’t block access, and that will give cover for the administration to argue on your behalf in the case where you did block access.
And indeed, the George H.W. Bush Administration joined alongside Operation Rescue in the Bray case, arguing that blocking women’s access to health clinics did not amount to discrimination against women. The Supreme Court agreed, leading Congress to pass the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act.
Reflecting on the upcoming presidential elections, Sekulow reminded the audience of the most important results of the current presidency: “Roberts and Alito. You don’t have to say a whole lot more.”
Posted by Ezra at 5:52 PM | Permalink
McCain: Bork Was No "Maverick Jurist"
John McCain is planning to be in North Carolina tomorrow where he is scheduled to give a speech on judicial nominations:
John McCain’s campaign said Friday that Fred Thompson and Sam Brownback will join the presumptive GOP nominee in North Carolina next week for a major speech on judicial appointments.
Both Thompson and Brownback have endorsed the Arizona senator, and both Republicans presented themselves throughout the Republican primary battle as “consistent conservatives,” particularly regarding social issues and judicial appointments.
The speech, to be held Tuesday at Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, will be just one element of a broader outreach to conservatives next week, according to the campaign.
McCain is expected to discuss the kinds of judges he would appoint up and down the federal bench.
Why he is doing this on the day of the Democratic primary in the state is hard to understand. Perhaps he is hoping to work his way into the press coverage … or perhaps he is hoping to keep a rather low profile while he delivers remarks designed solely to, once again, assure the GOP’s right-wing base that he’ll appoint justices like John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court without attracting too much attention from the media.
Either way, he’s probably hoping that the press won’t bother to actually write about his record on judges as exemplified by, say, his 1987 support of Robert Bork [PDF]:
I would like to explain why I am going to vote of favor of confirmation [of Robert Bork], and why I do so without any hesitation … I believe that what the Senate should appropriately examine in a nominee are: Integrity and character, legal competence, and philosophy and judicial temperament. I believe Robert Bork is well qualified in all four respects … Judge Bork’s honesty, integrity, and diligence are above reproach … [he] demonstrates that he is not some intellectual “loose cannon on deck,” or a quixotic maverick jurist , but is a thoughtful, reasonable, jurist … [he] is hardly a radical, but is rather a very thoughtful judge in synch with the vast majority of his colleagues on the bench.
…
First, and most importantly, is the question of Judge Bork’s view of the role of the judiciary. Judge Bork is clearly a believer in judicial restraint. He believes that the courts should not create social policy or arbitrate social policy disputes unless the Constitution clearly speaks to the issues. He believes that in our republican form of government such decisions are properly left to legislatures elected by the people, not Federal judges appointed for life. I have no problem with that view, because I wholeheartedly agree with it.
…
I have no problem with my colleagues voting against Bork if they truly believe he is unfit for the Supreme Court – although I personally cannot conceive of how you could reach that conclusion … I believe Robert Bork will be an outstanding Justice and contributor on that Court … Robert Bork deserves our support and will be a great Supreme Court Justice.
In his endorsement, McCain delivered a lengthy defense of Bork’s controversial views, stating that Roe v. Wade is "the clearest example of judicial 'legislation'" and that the rules it set out are "nonsense." Nor did McCain appear to be a fan of the right to privacy, stating that it was entirely "created by Justice Douglas in the Griswold case."
Joining McCain will be Fred Thompson, who shares McCain’s affinity for Justices like Roberts and Alito and is already out making the pitch for McCain on the issue of judges, and Sen. Sam Brownback, who endorsed McCain after his own presidential campaign folded in the early-going, in part to help pay off his campaign debt, but also because he was promised that he “would play an advisory role in helping decide who he should nominate for the Supreme Court.” That undoubtedly appealed to Brownback because, as he repeatedly stated when he was campaigning, he wanted nothing more than “to be the president that appoints the justice that's needed vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade." While he won’t get that opportunity to do that directly, advising McCain on Supreme Court nominations will still allow him to play an important role in finding a Supreme Court nominee that will finally eliminate the right to choose.
Posted by Kyle at 4:26 PM | Permalink
May 1, 2008
Phony 'Official' Group Prays for More Bush Judges
This morning, President Bush celebrated a National Day of Prayer, an annual non-sectarian rite going back decades. A much younger tradition was also observed: a phony “official” Day of Prayer group tried to usurp the national celebration with its own Religious Right-flavored broadcast.
As we explained last year, the National Day of Prayer Task Force—chaired by Shirley Dobson, James Dobson’s wife—is in fact an independent group whose platform runs contrary to the multi-faith spirit of the law. NDPTF specifically excludes participation by “Non-Judeo-Christian” groups, promotes fighting a “cultural war,” and its volunteers must swear their belief in an inerrant Bible.
Despite efforts this year by Jews on First, the Interfaith Alliance, and others to clarify that NDPTF is not a federal agency, confusion remains. The president himself helped to muddy the waters during the official White House ceremony, inviting the Dobsons and others involved with NDPTF and opening his remarks by thanking Shirley Dobson “for being the Chairman of the National Day of Prayer.”
The NDPTF ceremony this afternoon featured segments on the three branches of government, each featuring a prominent Republican speaker. The representative of the judicial branch was Judge Janice Rogers Brown, perhaps the most extreme-right of the controversial appeals-court nominees put forth by Bush. After Brown spoke on the nation’s “spiritual trajectory” (through events such as putting “In God We Trust” on coins), Vonette Bright—widow of Bill Bright and co-founder of Campus Crusade for Christ—led a prayer for more right-wing judges to “uphold God’s plan for marriage” and ban abortion:
Posted by Ezra at 5:40 PM | Permalink
April 24, 2008
McCain Wins By Losing
Suffice it to say that John McCain and Wisconsin Right to Life (WRTL) have had something of a rocky relationship in the past, engaging in extensive litigation over the senator’s flagship McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation ever since WRTL ran ads back in 2004 targeting WI senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold despite a provision in the law “banning ads that mention the names of candidates for public office within certain ‘blackout periods’ ranging from 30 to 60 days before an election--if funds from corporations or unions are used to pay for the ads.”
As the Weekly Standard explained:
McCain has thrown himself into the McCain-Feingold litigation with unusual fervor, personally intervening in Wisconsin Right to Life's lawsuit rather than relying solely on the lawyers for the Federal Election Commission and Justice Department who are charged with defending the constitutionality of federal election laws. "It is not a common, ordinary occurrence" for sponsors of federal legislation to become involved in litigation over their handiwork, notes Bradley A. Smith, a law professor at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio, who served as FEC chairman during Bush's first term and is a vocal opponent of McCain-Feingold as well as most other regulation of elections. "How rare it is I can't tell you, but it's more common just to file an amicus [friend-of-the-court] brief."
The case ended up going all the way to the Supreme Court and McCain even filed a brief in which he argued that WRTL’s actions were “a classic case of business corporations funneling unregulated monies to an advocacy group to pay for ads that will influence a federal election” in violation of the law.
Unfortunately for McCain, he ended up losing the case on a decision written by Chief Justice Roberts and joined by Justice Alito and and others whom he voted to confirm to the Court.
But it looks like WRTL isn’t one to hold a grudge, because they have now endorsed him and are citing his pledge to appoint more justices like Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court as one of the key reasons:
The Wisconsin Right to Life Political Action Committee today announced its endorsement of Sen. John McCain in the 2008 presidential race.
Senator McCain has a stellar 100% voting record on protecting unborn children from abortion. He opposes the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion on demand in the United States and he voted to ban the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. He opposes taxpayer funding of abortion and supports legislation that would require parental notification prior to a minor's abortion.
Senator McCain opposes human cloning and the intentional creation of human embryos for research purposes. He has stated that he would nominate U.S. Supreme Court justices in the mold of Justices Roberts and Scalia.
Presumably, all McCain needs to do to rack up support from his former Religious Right foes is to keep pledging to appoint the type of judges they demand, even if that means ones who will strike down legislation and views he otherwise champions.
Posted by Kyle at 4:21 PM | Permalink
April 8, 2008
It Never Ends
It is no secret that, when it comes to the issue of judicial nominees, the Right just likes to fight. And one of the way the GOP and the Right try to gin up their base in an election year is to make judges an issue, and make unfounded accusations of bigotry against any opponents. They’re at it once again:
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said Thursday he has not ruled out the option of shutting down the chamber to put fresh pressure on Democrats to confirm President Bush’s stalled judicial nominees.
…
His statement came after Republicans brought a Judiciary Committee meeting to a near-standstill to vent their frustrations with what they said was Democratic foot-dragging to confirm 10 pending nominees to federal appeals courts. They complained that there have been no committee hearings on nominees since last September, and say that at least nine more nominees need to be confirmed by the end of Bush’s term in order to match the 15 judges the Republican-controlled Senate approved in the final two years of the Clinton administration.
Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, told reporters last month that one of the options to force Democratic action is “shutting down the Senate.” He reiterated that threat this week in an interview with the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
In an interview with The Hill on Thursday, Specter said it was “a possibility” that the GOP would object to motions that allow routine business to proceed on the floor, a move that would stifle Senate action and effectively bring the chamber to a halt.
And once again, the Right is deploying its complementary tactic of ignoring the concerns raised about a controversial nominees’ record or judicial philosophy in favor of simply accusing Democrats of opposing the nominee out of bigotry. As we’ve noted before:
The Right sees some nefarious ulterior motive at work – and that is how they manage to convince themselves that opposition to [Leslie] Southwick stems not from concerns about his record but from some sort of deep-seeded hatred of Southern white males … the same way they said opposition to Miguel Estrada was really due to anti-Latino prejudice … and opposition to Priscilla Owen was the result of flagrant anti-woman bias … and opposition to William Pryor was actually due to anti-Catholic bigotry … and opposition to Janice Rogers Brown was in actuality rooted in racism.
And guess what? Here they go again ... this time with a bit of a twist, as Fidelis circularly accuses Sen. Pat Leahy , who is himself Catholic, of accusing Robert Conrad, who is likewise Catholic, of making anti-Catholic statements:
In the latest attack on 4th Circuit nominee Judge Robert Conrad, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), accused Conrad of making anti-Catholic comments in a letter submitted to a Catholic periodical over nine years ago. Leahy’s accusation comes as Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee have come under increased pressure to act on President Bush’s judicial nominations … Anti-Catholic bigotry in America is real, and we welcome efforts to confront it where it truly exists. But in the case of Judge Conrad, there is nothing that even remotely resembles anti-Catholicism.
While that complaint is a bit confusing and probably unlikely to generate any sort of outrage, Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice decided to take a different track and simply accuse Senate Democrats of being anti-Semitic for opposing the nomination of Peter Keisler:
Is the fact that Keisler is Jewish similarly contributing to his obstruction by Democrats? There is no way to know. But it’s worth noting that, of the nine appeals court nominees currently being obstructed, three are Jewish.
Of course, it is “worth noting” that three of the nominees are Jewish only if you are attempting to insinuate that opposition to their nominations is rooted in anti-Semitism - despite admitting that you have “no way to know” and absolutely no evidence that that is actually the case.
Posted by Kyle at 9:01 AM | Permalink
March 26, 2008
McCain’s Secret Speech
It is no secret that John McCain prides himself on being a straight-talkin’ maverick and that the media eats it up, which is why his cozying up to the likes of Rod Parsley and John Hagee received so little coverage. For that matter, it is probably also why McCain’s recent speech to the Council for National Policy received so little attention … well, that and the fact that the CNP is notoriously secretive and limited press access to his address.
But now, several weeks after the event and with absolutely no fanfare, the CNP quietly posted a transcript of his remarks on their threadbare website and while McCain would most certainly deny that he addressed the gathering with any attempt to pander for their votes, he certainly did a lot of telling them what they wanted to hear.
McCain offered up a litany of issues the Right cares about on which he completely shares their views: federal spending (too high), taxes (bad), dependence on foreign oil (also bad), the border (too porous), Iraq (a success) and, most importantly, judges:
I want to just mention a couple other things with you very briefly. Judges. I am proud to have played a role in the appointment of two of the finest judges I think that may have ever been appointed to the United States Supreme Court in Justices Alito and Roberts.
I commit to you, as I have for many years, I will appoint, nominate Judges to the United States Supreme Court who strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench.
McCain then opened the floor to questions and assured those in attendance that he intends to use his campaign to “articulate a strong and conservative vision for the future of this country” and bring the party together. He also reiterated his pledge to secure the borders, defeat terrorism, fight the Fairness Doctrine, control health care costs, and “change the culture in America to respect the rights of the unborn.” He also promised to throw his weight behind efforts to prevent gays and lesbians from being treated equally when it comes to marriage:
ATTENDEE: Senator, we are from Ohio, and in 2004, many say that the marriage amendment made the difference for Bush. This coming election, you are going to have - Florida is already on the ballot. Arizona is more than likely going to be on the ballot, and California. Will you openly support the marriage amendments in those three States?
SENATOR McCAIN: Yes, sir. And as I say, I am proud to have been the honorary chairman of our effort last time, which was narrowly defeated, as you know, because there was a misinterpretation of the language, and we are going to clear that up. I think we can win it this time.
McCain’s “straight talk” reputation is based, at least implicitly, on the assumption that he tells it like it is and won’t hesitate to tell audiences things they might not want to hear. But so far in this campaign, McCain has addressed three purely right-wing audiences (the CNP, the Values Voter Summit, and CPAC) and each time he has used the opportunity not to demonstrate his “maverick” ways but to humbly seek their support by constantly reminding them of the principles and positions they share, touting his conservative record, and all around telling them what they want to hear.
Posted by Kyle at 5:03 PM | Permalink
February 25, 2008
The Right’s Continuing Outrage Over the “Gang of 14”
It has been nearly three years since fourteen senators - seven Democrats and seven Republicans – hammered out a deal that preserved the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees and, judging by an article in the New York Times, the Right still hasn’t gotten over it:
Back in 2005, Senator John McCain of Arizona and fellow members of the so-called Gang of 14 were hailed as heroes in some quarters when they fashioned an unusual pact that averted a Senate vote on banning filibusters against judicial nominees.
Now Mr. McCain’s central role in that effort, which cleared the way for confirmation of some conservative jurists, is cited as one reason for lingering distrust of him among many conservatives. The power to appoint federal judges is seen as one of the most crucial presidential roles by many on the right, and some continue to believe the agreement undermined the Republican leadership at the precise moment the party was about to eliminate the ability to use procedural tactics to block judges.
James C. Dobson, an influential conservative leader, noted Mr. McCain’s role in the bipartisan Gang of 14 in his announcement that he could not support the lawmaker as the Republican nominee under any circumstances. Other conservatives still resent it as well.
“When people hear he was part of the Gang of 14, it leaves a bad taste in their mouths,” said Phil Burress, president of the Citizens for Community Values, based in Ohio.
Considering that, thanks to the deal, President Bush managed to seat right-wing ideologues such as William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Priscilla Owen on the federal bench – not to mention John Roberts and Samuel Alito on the Supreme Court – a lot of people have been wondering just what the Right is so upset about and why they insist on holding McCain’s participation against him.
In short, they were outraged, and seemingly continue to be outraged, that Senate Republicans failed to take advantage of an opportunity to jettison tradition in order to squash Democrats beneath their feet.
The “nuclear option” -- as the proposed attempt to do away with the filibuster was known despite Republican attempts to rechristen it the “constitutional option” -- was first floated back in 2003 in response to filibusters against Miguel Estrada and Priscilla Owen. Immediately, the Right rallied behind the idea, with groups like Committee for Justice, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Center for Reclaiming America, Concerned Women for America, and the American Center for Law and Justice all serving as vocal advocates.
When, two years later, their attempts to destroy the filibuster and squash the Democrats were seemingly thwarted by the "Gang of 14," the Right was apoplectic, as we chronicled in the days that followed the announcement:
When the agreement was announced, [Jan] LaRue belittled the Republicans who had agreed to it as “seven dwarves [who] have handed the filibuster key to the Supreme Court Castle with [sic] the Democrats.”
In keeping with his recent tirades about what the filibuster battle means to the right wing, Focus on the Family Action Chairman Dr. James Dobson, blasted the arrangement as a "complete betrayal.” "This Senate agreement represents a complete bailout and betrayal by a cabal of Republicans and a great victory for united Democrats," he said as he warned that “voters will remember both Democrats and Republicans who betrayed their trust.”
Lou Sheldon of the Traditional Values Coalition said the agreement was akin to forfeiting “the World Series … for some dumb reason" and berated the Republicans for failing to “have the backbone and the fortitude to stand up for the fact that we are the majority."
…
Rick Scarborough, Chairman of the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration, likewise voiced his outrage over this “betrayal of democracy, decency and fairness” and called the deal a “complete capitulation.” Scarborough pledged that the JCCCR will “re-double our efforts to eliminate the permanent filibuster – now and in the future.”
In an e-mail update sent to supporters later in the day, Scarborough declared that “I have rarely been more sickened than I am at this moment.” He went on to state that “this devil's bargain must not be allowed to stand and I give you my word we are expressing our outrage” and urged his supports to “let Senators know that you deplore this move and are determined to see the filibuster ended now or latter [sic].”
…
The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins likewise blasted the “ignoble judicial compromise” and likened the seven Republican Senators who signed the deal to Neville Chamberlain, the British Prime Minister known mainly for appeasing Adolf Hitler. Later in the evening, when Perkins appeared on “Hardball,” he made it clear that he considered Sen. John McCain to have “betrayed the majority leader and I think he betrayed the conservatives that gave the Senate expanded majorities.” He went on to complain that the seven Republicans who had agreed to the deal “stole defeat out of the mouth of victory.”
Pat Buchanan echoed the World War II surrender theme, though it was unclear who among the US Senators Pat Buchanan was comparing to Hitler and/or Mussolini when he characterized the agreement to table the nuclear option as “a Munich; a Munich of the Republican Party” on Don Imus’ “Imus in the Morning” show the day after the agreement had been reached.
…
On Dr. James Dobson’s Monday morning radio program, before the agreement was announced, Dobson and his guests made it clear that they would not support any sort of compromise because this was a must-win battle for the Right. Dobson said that the fight over the filibuster was “the most important issue that has come before the Senate since World War II.” He saw it as “a battle royal [about] everything we care about, and I think a collision between right and wrong and good and evil is all wrapped up in the outcome of this particular issue.”
One of Dobson’s guests, American Values’ Gary Bauer, likewise opposed any potential compromise on the issue, warning that “any effort to have a so-called ‘compromise’ would undercut our attempt to get this country’s culture back on the right road.” Tom Minnery, Focus on the Family’s VP of Government and Public Policy, echoed the “no compromise” theme: [T]here really is no compromise that is acceptable. You either preserve the filibuster for use against good Supreme Court nominees … or you end this unconscionable, unprecedented use of the filibuster that the Democrats have been employing.”
The Right was fully invested in seeing the Senate Republicans’ go through with the “nuclear option,” as evidenced by Paul Weyrich’s exhortation to carry it out:
[Senate Republicans will hear] screams of anguish from the minority, echoed by the national media. But who cares? [They need to] stop the whining about how powerless they are and at last use their power for the good of this country.
For the Right, the “nuclear option” was less about its real long-term impact and more about exploitation of power and sticking it to the Democrats – and they’ve never forgiven McCain and other members of the “Gang of 14” for denying them the thrill of that power play.
Posted by Kyle at 3:55 PM | Permalink
Older Judiciary posts: