Dems Can’t Stop Bush’s Nominees
That headline isn’t news to most people but it’s a major shock to the Democrats and their special interest masters. Here’s how the NY Times’ Adam Nagourney characterizes the Dems’ mood:
Disheartened by the administration’s success with the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr., Democratic leaders say that President Bush is putting an enduring conservative ideological imprint on the nation’s judiciary, and that they see little hope of holding off the tide without winning back control of the Senate or the White House. In interviews, Democrats said the lesson of the Alito hearings was that this White House could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country.
That conclusion amounts to a repudiation of a central part of a strategy Senate Democrats settled on years ago in a private retreat where they discussed how to fight a Bush White House effort to recast the judiciary: to argue against otherwise qualified candidates by saying they would take the courts too far to the right. Even though Democrats thought from the beginning that they had little hope of defeating the nomination, they were dismayed that a nominee with such clear conservative views, in particular a written record of opposition to abortion rights, appeared to be stirring little opposition.
The arrogance of the Democrats is summed up in these two sentences: “In interviews, Democrats said the lesson of the Alito hearings was that this White House could put on the bench almost any qualified candidate, even one whom Democrats consider to be ideologically out of step with the country” and “That conclusion amounts to a repudiation of a central part of a strategy Senate Democrats settled on years ago in a private retreat where they discussed how to fight a Bush White House effort to recast the judiciary: to argue against otherwise qualified candidates by saying they would take the courts too far to the right.”
Those two sentences are significant because we can see that Democrats thought that (a) they could railroad any nominee, regardless of their qualifications and (b) they could just shout “outside the mainstream” loud enough and often enough and the confirmation was doomed. They didn’t count on the American people not having the same venomous idealism that they had. They didn’t count on the American people being fair-minded, something that Ted Kennedy’s Judiciary Committee Democrats couldn’t see.
It’s also telling that Democrats didn’t care about a nominee’s qualifications as long as the nominee was (a) was nominated by President Bush and (b) didn’t immediately embrace Roe v. Wade as a matter of undisputed fact. In the end, the American people knew that and rejected that type of thinking, as well they should.
“They have made a lot of progress,” said Ronald A. Klain, a former Democratic chief counsel for the Judiciary Committee and the White House counsel in charge of judicial nominations for President Bill Clinton. “I hate to say they’re done because Lord only knows what’s next. They have achieved a large part of their objective.” Asked if he had any hope that Democrats could slow President Bush’s effort to push the court to the right, Mr. Klain responded: “No. The only thing that will fix this is a Democratic president and more vacancies. It takes a long time to make these kinds of changes and it’s going to take a long time to undo them.”
Mr. Klain, one of the biggest spinners in Washington, has it right this time. I particularly love the dejection in his voice. It’s worth noting that what he’s upset about is that President Bush has put a pair of jurists on the Supreme Court who believe in judicial modesty, don’t believe in setting social policy, and who actually believe in the literal interpretation of the Constitution. That’s what Mr. Klain’s upset about.
It’s also worth noting that there’s a pretty good likelihood that President Bush will get to nominate another Supreme Court justice before his term’s end, much to Mr. Klain’s disdain.
Cross-posted at LetFreedomRing
January 17th, 2006 at 7:03 am
Lawmaker: Alito’s record detrimental to Hispanics
Hispanics have fared poorly under Judge Samuel Alito’s judicial philosophy and likely would continue
January 17th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Alito’s record is not detrimental to any ethnic or racial group, but nor is it an atribute to any conservative group. Judge Alito will follow the Constitution and interpret its original intent, he will not help to rewrite it as a small minority want a Supreme Court Justice to do.