Captina Ed has a rundown of some of the more hysterical proclamations from Democratic Senators, including this from Chuck Schumer:
Sen. Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat and a member of the committee, told reporters it would be “a shame” if Mr. Bush makes his nomination “without real face-to-face, back-and-forth consultation.” Democrats argue that this is the correct meaning of the Senate’s constitutional “advice and consent” role.
I am not sure why he believes that the President is obligated to speak with the minority party- sure, Presidents have in the past, and I would like it if Bush at least humored them so as to tamp down the rhetoric a bit and to possibly produce a consensus candidate, but he doesn’t have to. If he chooses, he can get his advice from the majority party, and then seek the consent of full body of the Senate.
Captain Ed also has this quote:
“If the president abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people, then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee — and we intend to do so,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Massachusetts Democrat and member of the Judiciary Committee, said.
As Ed notes, picking someone the Democrats don’t like is hardly an abuse of power. If Bush moved to install a candidate without a vote in the Senate floor, that might be considered an abuse of power.
The President is going to point a conservative. The Democrats, if they play their cards right, may be able to influence whether this is a fire-breathing conservative, or a more moderate jurist. Maybe. I would suggest that running around shrieking apocalyptic rhetoric borrowed from activist groups is not the sane path for Democrats to follow. Harry Reid has his work cut out for him, and, for everyone’s sake, lets hope he is a better leader of his caucus than Bill Frist is of his.
*** Update ***
Steve Smith notes that the Schumer statement was in reference to the agreement by the gang of 14. I thought the agreement was specifically for judicial posts other than the Supreme Court, but I am probably wrong.
Regarding Kennedy’s quip, Russ notes:
Of all the Kennedy brothers, why did this one have to be the one to live to a ripe old age?
The evidence of alcohol’s efficacy as a preservative continues to mount….
Because, as you know, I can not resist a gratuitous swipe at Teddy K. It is part of my DNA.
Steve Smith
Schumer’s reference to “consultation” wasn’t to any Constitutional obligation; it was to the agreement the Gang of 14 made awhile back, which specifically calls for the President to consult with Democrats. If he doesn’t consult, then the Democrats have their justification to filibuster.
eileen from OH
John, in negotiating you always shoot for way more than you know you’ll ultimately get. If the Dems say “We know the President will nominate a conservative, but we really hope it’s a nice one” you can bet your boots that Bush would come back with Judge Rabid E. Theocrat and say “See, it’s a conservative, just like you asked for.”
It’s the minority’s job to be the loyal opposition, which is what Kennedy was saying. I know I’m counting on the Dems to oppose Judge Rabid. Who are all sane conservative/independent/libertarian folks counting on?
eileen from OH
KC
I really think Bush needs this judicial war. It’s something that could give him a boost. On the other hand, as Dems develop a strategy, I bet they’ll cool down a little. The only way they’re going to be able to do anything is to influence some moderate Republicans. Or, if not, open up the fissures between the Frists and the Snowes.
p.lukasiak
As Ed notes, picking someone the Democrats don’t like is hardly an abuse of power.
of course, that isn’t what Kennedy said would be an “abuse of power” — but straw men like this make it easier to criticize Kennedy. Perhaps next time you will criticize what Kennedy said, and not what you wish he had said.
Jimmy Jazz
According to every opinion poll I’ve ever seen, people just want the partisanship to end (fat chance) and for Congress to focus on something other than Florida vegetables and non-burning flags (also, fat chance). To say that Democrats calling for bipartisanship and consultation is bad politics is just silly. It’s what America wants, too bad they won’t get it.
tim
If Bush is smart, he’ll nominate a libertarian-conservative. He’s losing that side of the party, and the Democratic hacks won’t know what to make of someone like that.
Of course, I don’t think Bush is that smart, and will probably try to pay off the Christian Nutbag Movement again.
Mark Borok
“I really think Bush needs this judicial war.”
Like he needed the Terry Schiavo controversy, the social security fight and all the other domestic issues that he’s done so well on.
Except for lowering taxes and the medicare bill (which was liberal) I can’t think of a thing off the top of my head that Bush has done domestically that has improved his standing.