Common ground elusive in U.S. Senate

[Tigermike 3,051]

Article Published: Wednesday, April 20, 2005

commentary

Common ground elusive in U.S. Senate

By Al Knight

Denver Post Columnist

The American constitutional system assumes that over time the federal courts will be politically balanced. This balance is to be achieved as a succession of presidents, each reflecting the popular will of the times, appoints judges to the federal bench.

However, a Democratic minority in the U.S. Senate has lately declared war on this well-settled principle and is determined to deny President Bush appointive rights enjoyed by his predecessors. What is especially stunning is that this minority of senators appears willing to ignore the results of last year's election in which the issue of judicial nominees was prominently featured. Not only did Bush win with a larger-than-ever Republican Senate majority, but the Democratic leader who had led the fight against Bush's judicial nominees was himself defeated. Still today, the Democratic minority remains committed to deny 10 of Bush's appellate court nominees an up or down Senate vote.

One of those Democrats is Ken Salazar of Colorado who, during his campaign last year, announced that he favored up or down votes for judicial nominees.

That statement effectively defused the issue and allowed Salazar to picture himself as a plain-spoken moderate. Well, it hasn't taken long for the bloom to come off that rose. Now that he's in office, Salazar sounds like, say, Charles Schumer of New York.

The Colorado senator apparently assumes that state voters have lost their memory cells.  (Isn't that normal for Democrats?    )

Not long ago, when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada stood on the Capitol steps and announced that he would shut down the business of the U.S. Senate rather than agree to end the filibuster of judges, Salazar was right there with him.

In one sense, Salazar is trying to have it three ways. He says he favors up or down votes on judicial nominees. He says he believes Bush should withdraw his 10 nominations precluding a vote, and he claims he will decide all judicial appointments on a case-by-case basis.

Salazar is hopelessly confused. The clear implication of his campaign statement was that he would not support the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominees. That comment, it is now obvious, was either false or terribly misleading.

He is now doing a dance designed to disguise that fact. Last month, he wrote a letter to President Bush which was largely a smokescreen for his decision to surrender to his party's leaders. Most of the letter is packed with self-serving liberal rhetoric about health care, the budget deficit and transportation, but the lead paragraphs dealt with judicial nominees. Salazar asked the president to withdraw the names of the 10 judges in order to establish "common ground" and begin work on the "most important" issues facing the country.

What is being done to Bush's judicial nominees is not some distraction. It is one of the most important issues facing the country and Salazar can't alter that fact just by prattling on about how important transportation is.

The president didn't pick this fight. In making nominations to the federal bench, he had every expectation that his nominees would be treated fairly and that they would receive an up or down vote. This is especially so since the nominees are, almost by any measure, well-qualified.

Democratic senators can posture all they want and brag that they have confirmed over 200 of Bush's judicial nominees. The fact remains that 10 of the nominees to the nation's highest court have been denied a vote, some for as long as four years. The threatened use of the filibuster promises a vicious future fight over a Supreme Court nominee.

That's the issue that is front and center.

Salazar has chosen a side in this fight that is contrary to his campaign comments and he should not be allowed to duck responsibility for his choice by claiming he will decide these matters on a "case-by-case basis." The only way judicial nominees can be decided on a case-by-case basis is by first establishing the principle that the nominees will, in fact, receive an up-or-down vote.

Salazar (and Democrats in their press statements and sound bites) says he wants to restore amity in the U.S. Senate - but his actions make it certain there will instead be continued conflict.

Al Knight of Fairplay (alknight@mindspring.com) is a former member of The Post's editorial-page staff. His columns appear on Wednesday.

Denver Post

[Piglet 0]

(yawn) The White House shouldn't submit nominees that they KNOW are gonna be unacceptable, and then re-nominate them when they've been rejected.

[Tigermike 3,051]

I'm so sorry, I completely forgot that it was all Bush's fault.

[MDM4AU 336]

(yawn)  The White House shouldn't submit nominees that they KNOW are gonna be unacceptable, and then re-nominate them when they've been rejected.

156476[/snapback]

Unacceptable to whom? Who was rejected? I didn't think they got a vote one way or the other.

[TrueBlue72 0]

Yeah, right, Piglet...... GWB should run all his potential nominees by Ted Kennedy to be sure they're acceptable before nominating them!!!!

I hope GWB nominates the most conservative judges he can find and rams through their nominations by whatever means necessary to be sure that the courts will be as free as possible from judicial activism for the next generation.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Yeah, right, Piglet......  GWB should run all his potential nominees by Ted Kennedy to be sure they're acceptable before nominating them!!!!

I hope GWB nominates the most conservative judges he can find and rams through their nominations by whatever means necessary to be sure that the courts will be as free as possible from judicial activism for the next generation.

156610[/snapback]

By and large the people W has nominated have not been overly conservative. Or so I have read in the news papers and internet and heard of TV News (CNN, MSNBC & FOX).

[Tiger Al 0]

I hope GWB nominates the most conservative judges he can find and rams through their nominations by whatever means necessary to be sure that the courts will be as free as possible from judicial activism for the next generation.

This desired action would render impossible your desired result and actually exposes your TRUE desire. You don't mind "judicial activism," just as long as it's "conservative" judicial activism.

[Piglet 0]

Golly gee, just imagine if Bush had been a divider not a uniter.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Golly gee, just imagine if Bush had been a divider not a uniter.

156623[/snapback]

Golly gee, just imagine if the Democrats really believed in bipartisanship!

[Piglet 0]

Golly gee, just imagine if the Democrats really believed in bipartisanship! 

156638[/snapback]

Maybe they paid attention to Grover Norquist, who says bipartisanship is another word for date rape.

Or maybe they watched their GOP brethren interpret their bipartisanship as a sign of weakness and decided it wasn't worth it. My senator, Max Cleland, was a great bipartisan. His reward for extending his remaining hand across the aisle was to have a Republican named Saxby bite it off. Same thing happened to Tom Daschle when he tried to cooperate.

Go ahead. Shoot down all the remaining moderates in the Democratic party, and complain that the survivors won't play nice with ya.

[Tigermike 3,051]

Golly gee, just imagine if the Democrats really believed in bipartisanship! 

156638[/snapback]

Maybe they paid attention to Grover Norquist, who says bipartisanship is another word for date rape.

Or maybe they watched their GOP brethren interpret their bipartisanship as a sign of weakness and decided it wasn't worth it. My senator, Max Cleland, was a great bipartisan. His reward for extending his remaining hand across the aisle was to have a Republican named Saxby bite it off. Same thing happened to Tom Daschle when he tried to cooperate.

Go ahead. Shoot down all the remaining moderates in the Democratic party, and complain that the survivors won't play nice with ya.

156644[/snapback]

I went along with the biggest part of your post, but to say Tom Daschle was a proponent of bipartisanship is obscene. Ole Tom was one of the biggest obstructionist democrat agenda dudes ever.

What hurt Daschle, and ultimately cost him his Senate seat was campaigning as a conservative and then legislating as a liberal.

[Piglet 0]

I went along with the biggest part of your post, but to say Tom Daschle was a proponent of bipartisanship is obscene.  Ole Tom was one of the biggest obstructionist democrat agenda dudes ever.

What hurt Daschle, and ultimately cost him his Senate seat was campaigning as a conservative and then legislating as a liberal.

156661[/snapback]

Daschle may be too lefty for your taste, but he did cooperate when it really counted--right after 9/11 and in the vote to get Saddam. That deserves a little better than having the Bush throw everything they had at him. You don't get elected and re-elected in South Dakota by being a Barbara Boxer clone, and Daschle won statewide elections for more than two decades.

[AUloggerhead 2,252]

(yawn)  The White House shouldn't submit nominees that they KNOW are gonna be unacceptable, and then re-nominate them when they've been rejected.

156476[/snapback]

I agree. Bush should not be re-nominating candidates that have already been voted down. The problem here is that these nominees weren't even voted on. Wouldn't you agree that getting blocked by a Senate procedure (i.e. fillibuster) is not the same as getting rejected via a vote on the Senate floor? Breaking a fillibuster requires a 60% super majority, while a simple majority of 50% is all that's required for confirmation (VP Cheney would presumably break any tie.) Which should take precedence -- the Constitution or a Senate procedure not even mentioned in the Constitution? Constitutional crisis, indeed.

[DKW 86 7,440]

Golly gee, just imagine if the Democrats really believed in bipartisanship! 

156638[/snapback]

Maybe they paid attention to Grover Norquist, who says bipartisanship is another word for date rape.

Or maybe they watched their GOP brethren interpret their bipartisanship as a sign of weakness and decided it wasn't worth it. My senator, Max Cleland, was a great bipartisan. His reward for extending his remaining hand across the aisle was to have a Republican named Saxby bite it off. Same thing happened to Tom Daschle when he tried to cooperate.

Go ahead. Shoot down all the remaining moderates in the Democratic party, and complain that the survivors won't play nice with ya.

156644[/snapback]

Dude, if you really believe that 'Mr Extremism' Cleland and Tom 'The Hatchet' Daschle were middle of the roaders, you need to be medicated.

[TrueBlue72 0]

WRONG, as usual TA. Conservative judges accept the constitution as written and don't try to rewrite it to fit the current political agenda. When you start talking about what I want, you are clueless..... just like the demoncrats talking about what the American people want!!!

[Tiger Al 0]

There you go again, David. You hate something so much that when confronted with it you pull out the good old, well worn devices in perfect Hannity fashion. Had other conservative members on this board claimed Daschle and Cleland were "extremists" I wouldn't even check it out. But, for some reason, I felt that I MUST this time. As expected, the facts belied your assertion. One of Tigermike's favorite sites, On The Issues.org, says:

Tom Daschle is a Moderate Liberal.

Max Cleland is a Moderate Liberal.

While left of center, Daschle and Cleland are hardly "extremists," unless your starting point for "moderism" is James Inhofe.

James Inhofe is a Hard-Core Conservative.

[Tiger Al 0]

WRONG, as usual TA.  Conservative judges accept the constitution as written and don't try to rewrite it to fit the current political agenda.  When you start talking about what I want, you are clueless.....  just like the demoncrats talking about what the American people want!!!

156689[/snapback]

Can you give examples of judges accepting the constitution as written and some examples of those who don't?

[DKW 86 7,440]

There you go again, David. You hate something so much that when confronted with it you pull out the good old, well worn devices in perfect Hannity fashion. Had other conservative members on this board claimed Daschle and Cleland were "extremists" I wouldn't even check it out. But, for some reason, I felt that I MUST this time. As expected, the facts belied your assertion. One of Tigermike's favorite sites, On The Issues.org, says:

Tom Daschle is a Moderate Liberal.

Max Cleland is a Moderate Liberal.

While left of center, Daschle and Cleland are hardly "extremists," unless your starting point for "moderism" is James Inhofe.

James Inhofe is a Hard-Core Conservative.

156700[/snapback]

Cool! this is the same test that says I am a centrist libertarian too.

Nice try Sherlock.

[Tiger Al 0]

Cool! this is the same test that says I am a centrist libertarian too. 

Nice try Sherlock.

Hey, it's not my fault if you can't even be honest with yourself when taking a simple test!

It is actually not the same test. The result looks the same with the dot and graph. This test gives more choices for your responses and gives explanations for each choice. It's better. Here's mine:

[DKW 86 7,440]

DKW update with new results. Thanks for the link btw...

Still puts me in the Moderate/Populist /Conservative corner.

These tests are really weak btw. The other test says Centrist/Libertarian.

Guess it just matters on who grades the tests.

And Al, I bet I am as honest as anyone on this board with these tests. What a cheap shot...

[Tiger Al 0]

DKW update with new results. Thanks for the link btw...

Still puts me in the Moderate/Populist /Conservative corner.

These tests are really weak btw. The other test says Centrist/Libertarian.

Guess it just matters on who grades the tests.

And Al, I bet I am as honest as anyone on this board with these tests. What a cheap shot...

156849[/snapback]

The position of your dot fits you perfectly!

[DKW 86 7,440]

Took old test again...Got exactly the same score...

Meaningless?

[Piglet 0]

Turns out I'm a Moderate, closer to populist than anything else. I reckon that's about right.