The Washington Times does their part to scare you:
Now that control of the U.S. Senate is clearly in play in the congressional midterm elections next month, it is instructive to contemplate how the federal judiciary will be affected if Democrats gain at least six seats, which would give them majority status in Congress’s upper chamber. For President Bush and anybody else who espouses a traditional conservative judicial philosophy comparable to the views of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, Democratic majority control of the Senate would be disastrous. The very liberal Sen. Patrick Leahy, Vermont Democrat, would return as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
After Republicans regained control of the Senate in the 2002 elections, Mr. Leahy became the principal architect of the unprecedented systematic filibuster campaign against appellate-court nominees. In the 108th Congress (2003-2004), Democrats successfully filibustered 10 appellate nominees; they prevailed in seven cloture votes against Mr. Estrada alone, and threatened filibusters against more than half a dozen others.
If Mr. Leahy reclaims the Judiciary gavel, it is safe to say that he will do everything possible to effectively strip President Bush of his constitutional power to appoint appellate-court judges, including any nominations to the Supreme Court.
Look- from my standpoint, Patrick Leahy as Judiciary Chairman probably would be a disaster. My beliefs haven’t changed- I still oppose many of the Democrats and many of their views, and I still believe many of the same things I always did. What has happened is that the Republicans have had power of Congress, and systematically violated most of what they claimed to believe in. Remember- these are the folks that started out with the Campaign Finance Reform, holding their nose and hoping the Supreme Court would overturn the mess they created. The Supremes didn’t, and we have to live with their legislation. It has gone downhill since.
So would Leahy be a disaster? Probably. But at least it would be a different kind of disaster, and I won’t be responsible for it.
Read this editiorial for a reality check.
Andrew
Okay, there are two major occurences of stupidity here.
One is the Washington Times bending over, as usual, for the unitary executive. “Striping” constitutional power? What is wrong with these people (who actually believe this)?
The second is Cole’s absurd pronouncement: “So would Leahy be a disaster? Probably.” I suppose Leahy will use his amazing extra-constitutional power to nominate judges all by himself, and imprison Cheney in Gitmo while he’s at it. Such is the power of the Judiciary Chairman.
Geez, John, you were doing so well on your rehab. This is like a minor relapse, so we’ll overlook it for now.
Andrew
*stripping, not striping. I agree that Leahy striping would just be odd. On the other hand, I don’t want to see any stripping by Leahy either.
Mike
Andrew stated my thoughts very well. John, get a grip please.
John Cole
Andrew- I am not a Democrat. I have never pretended to be a Democrat. I don’t hold Democratic views.
From my standpoint, Leahy will be a disaster. But I will still vote for Democrats this election cycle, because the simple fact of the matter is the Republicans are worse.
Pb
I don’t think that Leahy could be more of a disaster than Specter has already been, really. I don’t foresee Leahy doing the sort of dishonest stealth waffling (aka Spectering) that Specter is known for. Where’s the fire?
Blue Neponset
I think calling Leahy a ‘disaster’ is hyperbole. You won’t get all the judges you want, but that has more to do with the fact that the Democrats have won control of the Senate than who the judiciary committee chariman is. What is Leahy going to do that would make him a worse chairman than some other Democratic Senator? You can dislike the results all you want, but singling Sen. Leahy out as the cause of those results is not accurate.
Andrew
No, seriously, what in the world could Leahy possibly do that would be disasterous? Or even slightly bad?
You mean he would only allow moderate judge nominations out of committee? He would block right wing idealogues? How horrible! Do you really think he would just not approve any appointments at all, leading to a collapse of the judicial branch?
I don’t get it.
capelza
I don’t know how Leahy would be…but I gotta love a guy that Dick Cheney feels compelled to say “fuck off” to on the Senate floor.
John Cole
Andrew- I will concede that anything Leahy does will have to be pretty remarkable to earn the title of disaster, and yes, Neponset is right- it is hyperbole (whereas I believe the Republicans have been an actual disaster).
But that is precisely my point- prior to the GOP taking control, from my standpoint, Leahy would have been a disaster. Having seen a real mess up close and personal, though, it kind of changes your perspective a little bit.
Vladi G
Care to say why? And “I’m still a Republican” doesn’t quite cut it. Why would Leahy be a disaster? He can’t nominate people to the court all by himself. The worst the Moonie Times can come up with is that he kept a host of right wing nutjobs off the federal bench, the types of judges supported by the same people you derided during the Schiavo debacle. That and some paranoia about stripping Bush’s constitutional authority to appoint judges. Call me crazy, but I don’t think he’ll be sponsoring an amendment which will rewrite Article 2 (an article that the Moonie Times clearly misinterprets).
Pardon me if I’m wrong, but it’s always been my understanding that you’re a Republican because you believe in fiscal restraint, strong national defense, and a smaller government that isn’t all up in everyone’s business. The judiciary committee doesn’t focus on two of those things, and you’re more liberal than not on the third.
So why exactly would Leahy be a disaster?
Steve
Here’s a true reality check for you.
During the last two years of Clinton’s term, less than half of his appeals court nominees were confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate.
During those same two years, over one-third of Clinton’s judicial nominations (41 out of 118) never even got the fabled “up-or-down vote” in the Republican-controlled Senate. Republicans denied a floor vote to FORTY-ONE nominees! And yet we heard all the babbling about the “nuclear option” and “disregard for the traditions of the Senate” when less than 10 Bush nominees were being filibustered.
Do you suppose the Washington Times wrote breathless editorials about how the Republicans were “effectively stripping President Clinton of his constitutional power to appoint judges”? Not so much.
The idea that every nominee deserves an “up-or-down vote” was invented the day President Bush took office – and it will be uninvented the day a Democratic President takes office. The fact that the Republicans would shriek “obstructionism!” if the Democrats blocked one single judge doesn’t mean they have a point.
chopper
yeah, out of how many nominees they let through? what was it, 10 filibustered out of 205? while the GOP used their majority power during clinton’s second term to keep 16 of his nominees off the senate floor entirely?
this is the way these things work. the dems do half as much as the GOP did, and the GOP bitches twice as hard.
Jack Roy
Add me to the list of those who don’t see what a Senate committee chair of a different party than the president could do by way of being a disaster. A Democratic majority in the Senate pretty much only means less action, not the action taking a different direction—at least in the context of Senate Judiciary. It’s not like Leahy will be able to nominate judges himself[fn1], and the Democrats aren’t going to have a veto-proof majority. So… Democratic majorities are hard to describe as a potential “disaster,” at least to my eyes, at least in this context.
[fn1]: One caveat—it’s been traditional for members of the Senate majority to suggest a small number of judicial nominees for district courts in their home states. If the president is of the same political party, that home-state senator always gets his or her way; if they’re of different parties there’s usually a negotiation, the implicit threat being that the home-stater will hold up all nominations in his or her own state if the proposed nominee doesn’t get at least some consideration. Hence you see a lot of these five-judge packages coming from Bush for courts in, say, New York, with Sens. Schumer and Clinton suspiciously agreeable to them. Probably what happened is the Senators each got one nominee of their choosing with three of Bush’s, because the fight over judges in a senator’s home state isn’t one the WH wants.
John Cole
I am not sure why you all are so upset about my position, which is pretty clear.
Patrick Leahy is not the person I want chairingthe Senate committee. He and I most likely have different views on what judges shoujld be like. In years past, his being committe chair probably would be a disaster, from my standpoint. I probably, if politics were sane, would think today that his views are disastrous. But the GOP has been so bad, and has done nothing to restrain this President or temper his choices that while Leahy may fit into what I would view as disastrous, it is preferrable to the status quo.
If that still offends you, I don;t know how else to phrase it. Will he be an actual disaster if he is the chairman? I am willing to give him a chance to find out. Other than me becoming a Democrat, I don’t know what is going to satisfy you, but I assure you that isn’t going tohappen.
Punchy
Wanna offer some evidence? Some conjecture? Some proof? No, you just love to throw all Dems in with the “I’m sure they’d be horrible, baby-killing, canniballistic grandmother rapists because they’re Democrats” line.
Nice. Of course they’d be worse, Mr. Cole suggests, because they’re Democrats. But he’s TIRED of all the partisan shit going in Congress…how Republicans blame every Democrat for their problems.
Turns out…he’s NOT tired of all the partisan bullshit on his blog, however. ‘Drew nailed it.
Punchy
Here’s a hint. Give us some examples of what “disasterous” stuff he’d pull. Show us that you can back up your ridiculous “he’d suck cuz he’s a Dem” line…
I’m sure we’ll be waiting all afternoon for this.
Area Man
With these people, “traditional conservative judicial philosophy” begins and ends with overturning Roe v Wade. After which they will presumably roll over and go back to sleep.
Lovingly embracing the live boy or dead woman of their choice.
Pb
Well, that is at least better than “So would Leahy be a disaster? Probably”. But really your link at the end is far saner still.
Steve
Substance and process are two separate issues. I accept that conservatives want to see more conservative judges appointed, and that’s fine. But the Washington Times is trying to drum up hysteria over a question of pure process – the idea that Leahy will interfere with George Bush’s God-given right to put judges of his choice on the courts. As I’ve demonstrated above, that critique is born of pure partisan opportunism, and I’d be happier if John would recognize that on the question of procedure, they have no room to complain whatsoever. That doesn’t mean I expect him to repudiate his preference for conservative judges.
Pb
He might fight for habeas corpus rights for Americans? Oh, I’m sorry, you wanted that from a GOP perspective? He’d let the terrorists win. Duh.
Jack Roy
John, I don’t think we’re upset, I think we’re confused. Disaster is the wrong word—but not because it won’t be a disaster given present circumstances, but because the Judiciary chair just doesn’t have that kind of power. What can he do? Hold up qualified nominees? Enforce the Senate’s pink slips? Fail to give hearings on legislation (that Senators can always attach as riders to other legislation)? Now, he may not be the guy you want as chairman; Paul Lo Duca isn’t the guy I want batting second in the lineup—we don’t always get what we want but it’s just a mystifying opinion that Leahy is a guy with the potential to be dangerous. Senate Judiciary just isn’t that kind of body.
Jack Roy
Punchy, don’t be a dick. You too, Pb.
John Cole
Leahy will be a disaster, from my perspective, because he will have a great deal of say in appointing judges whose philosophy is remarkably different from my own. Now, the pendulum has swung so far to the right, that over the next two years, I am willing to give him a go- in fact i like the idea of an in your face left-winger standing as an obstacle to this administration and their desires, so if you are arguing that right now he wold not be a disaster, you would be right.
But I would hate having Leahy as chairman with a Democratic President 9and I am hoping we have a democratic president in 2008). I want a Democratic president, a Democratic house, and a Republican Senate.
You sound as unhinged as the Powerline. They aren’t bad because they are Democrats, they would be bad because they have an agenda I do not agree with. I voted for Republicans in large part because they were the better alternative- but they have proven themselves to be feckless and incompetent and at their worst, evil. So now I am willing to give the Democrats a chance, because they, while not really representing my views and advancing an agenda that on the whole I think is wrong for the country, it is betterthan what I haveseen from the GOP. And for that, you call me partisan.
Not sure what I can do.
Andrew J. Lazarus
What the Times really means is that under Dems, the Nuclear Option is dead. Not only does this preclude putting a bunch of wackos on the courts, but even worse it legitimates resistance to the All-Powerful Unitary Executive Branch, as elucidated by John Yoo.
John Cole
I understand. Right now I think Leahy will be fine and am willing to give him a chance, and someone mentioned it earlier- that shitty detainee bill would not have passed had Leahy been chair.
Maybe disaster is the wrong word, given the past few years.
Leahy is not my ideal candidate, and I would hate having him in charge with a Democratic President. That would be, from my point of view, a disaster. But over the next two years, you are right- there is little he could do otherthan slow/stop the proven disastrous GOp agenda.
Regardless, I am voting for Byrd. And yes, that will keep me up at nights given my hatred of Byrd over the past 20 years. But I am gonna do it anyway.
Pb
In other news, guess who’s still on the list to be shipped away and tortured if he enters the US? Yes, that’s right, it’s Maher Arar, everybody’s favorite tortured Canadian non-terrorist. You see, he would have been accepting a human rights award in DC, but he didn’t really want to risk another one-way vacation to Syria of indeterminate length for him and possibly even his wife as well. So what’s the solution? Well, either we can vote the Republicans out and try to start start acting humane again, or perhaps they could start awarding the human rights awards in Canada instead of the US.
Vladi G
Well I think that’s the problem. Your position isn’t clear at all. Two things:
1) Disaster is a pretty strong word. I don’t like Orrin Hatch, but I’m not sure I’d call him a disaster, most likely because I can’t imagine any other republican being any better. Saying someone is a disaster sort of implies that things are really, really fucked up, and a large portion of the blame goes to the person in question. I’m not sure the chair of the judiciary committee ever has enough power to make that the case, and I’m fairly certain that if the chair of the committee was of the opposition party (to the president), it would never be the case. Rumsfeld as defense secretary is a disaster. I don’t think the chair of a committee that can’t really do anything until the president appoints someone can ever sink to that level.
2) Your comments sound personal to Leahy. Maybe you don’t mean them to, but they do. You’re making it sound like there’s something particular about Leahy that would make HIM a disaster, as opposed to some other Democratic Senator.
Imagine if we were talking about football, and I said “The Mountaineers suck!”. You might say, “Why do you think they suck?” I might respond with “Look, my position is clear, they suck”. I don’t think that would satisfy your curiosity.
What views are those, generally?
Pb
Who are you, the new hall monitor?
Tsulagi
Bartlett in the NYT opinion piece is correct about what would likely happen with Dem control of one or both houses of Congress. Republicans can put their Cassandra dresses back in the closet.
If Leahy was Judiciary Chairman during the last two years of the “Bush Revolution,” the net effect would be zero. If Dems nominate judges who don’t reflexively send Bush smiley cards, you know how The Decider will act. He will stamp his little feet, go into his ultra-pout mode, then get who he wants through recess appointments. That’s who he is.
John Cole
For years, I bought the spin that the Democrats would nominate and approve ‘activist judges’- the types of judge who would turn the Constitution on its head and use the courts as a legislative body. In other words, I feared the Democrats would appoint the types of judges the GOP has spent the past few years installing, but with a different political philosophy.
It may very well be that I am still suffering from years of agitprop, and that those fears are unfounded. It may well be that like everything else the GOP has been feeding me, that will turn out to be bullshit. As I am willing to take the chance, we may soon see.
But just because you say my fear is unfounded does not make the fear non-existent. I am willing to take the chance, though, particularly since Terri Schiavo gave a crystal clear look at what the GOP considers are activist judges- people who follow the law, and don;t simply do whatever Tom DeLay and Randall Terry want.
And I will say it again- I am voting for the Democrats, so even though I have my reservations, I am giving them a chance.
The Ghost of Santa Claus
Something to do with activist judicial philosophy? Something to do with leaking. “Leaky Leahy”, I guess the wingnuts call him- Does he have a weak bladder or something?
Congress probably shouldn’t hold recesses during the Bush years. It’s gone about as well for them as a 23-hour suicide watch.
Pb
Good call. And while we’re on the topic, what are the odds that Bolton could get a second recess appointment?
You’d prefer a Senate vote now, would you? You didn’t prefer it last time…
Pb
You’ve come a long way, baby. I hope they prove themselves worthy of your vote–and mine. Or, if not, then may they at least be better than the devil you know, for now.
John Cole
That was kinda the point of this whole post- I am still conditioned to believe Leahy will be a disaster- but at least it won’t be my disaster, and it will be a disaster in a different direction, which, if nothing else, will put some checks and balances on this administration nad maybe move the pendulum back to the left.
Steve
I think it’s clear that Bush will not be nominating any liberal judges to the bench, no matter what. Now, maybe President Hillary will put Michael Moore on the Supreme Court, but that’s down the road.
All that will happen is that there will be a few more vacancies on the federal courts, which really won’t affect your life much at all.
Bush is a fight-picker, and judges are a strong issue for the GOP with their base, so you can rest assured he will continue to pick fights. When Priscilla Owen was voted down by the Judiciary Committee, for example, Bush simply nominated her again, which is a pretty unprecedented act. So Bush is going to keep on nominating the same type of judges you’ve grown accustomed to.
Judges were a fairly big issue in the Republican victories in 2002 and 2004. It seems perfectly logical that Karl Rove would want to provoke the Democrats into further acts of obstruction, so they can use that to rally the base in 2008. There’s no way Bush is going to sit down with Leahy (like Clinton did with Orrin Hatch) and work out a consensus list of center-right judges that everyone can approve of; it’s simply not in the Republicans’ electoral interests to seek bipartisan consensus, not on an issue that is demonstrably good at rallying the base.
The Ghost of Santa Claus
Some people are still upset about Wickard v. Fillburn. Or Griswold v. Connecticut/Roe v. Wade. Or really, any case in which the left wing of the Supreme Court came out ascendent. Because the only correct way to interpret the Constitution is to look at pre-Revolutionary statutes, or to latch onto the words and ideas of one Founding Father and ram those through as speaking for the correct interpretation of the Bill of Rights for all eternity- originalism, in a nutshell, which conveniently goes out the window once it interferes with conservative ideology.
Or something like that.
Fear not. I don’t think you have to worry about Democratic overreach any time soon. If the Democrats win, and win again, and then begin acting in as partisan and inappropriate a manner as the Republicans have, they will quickly lose again. Losing is something the Democrats are very, very good at.
Maybe we should give the GOP the benefit of the doubt here. Who knows? Maybe Scalia has some time machine that enables him to go back to 1789 Philadelphia and ask Ben Franklin what he thinks of the legal and moral implications of 21st-century medical technology. (Then again, you’d think the Founders would’ve gotten wise to all this questioning, and pass an Amendment banning cloning and stem cell research or something.)
Pb
Oh, ok, now I think I see what you were saying–sort of a counter-disaster to cancel out the other, pre-existing disasters. Like a cyclone hitting an anti-cyclone or something.
Vladi G
I’m not sure I would have called your fear unfounded if for no other reason that I had no freaking clue on what foundations your fear rested.
Pb
Or maybe they’d pass an amendment banning time travel, or ‘strict constructionism’. :)
The Ghost of Santa Claus
Good point. Compromise would hinder the base’s turnout, which would check the Party’s power, which would impair the ongoing kleptocracy that is unified Republican government. (Kleptocracy masquerading as aristocracy pretending to be an oligarchy which is nominally a Democratic republic, if you want to be precise about it.)
The Ghost of Santa Claus
Not if they were warned off that disastrous 1795 invasion of Iraq, though. Oh, wait…
(Actually, considering the times and the majority mentality, if Scalia went back they might pass an Amendment banning Papists from the Judiciary. That’s why the wingnuts would have to send back Falwell or some other jackass whose religious/ethnic background was more acceptable to the Founding WASPs.)
ThymeZone
Don’t worry
PhilArlen Specter is handling that for us.ThymeZone
Strict constructionism is the source of rights for zygotes.
Zygote citizenship is clearly spelled out here in Article … uh … wait … it’s right here ….
Tsulagi
Exactly. Just needed a little emphasis.
Fixed.
ThymeZone
Some will and some won’t and I think that the thing is inversely proportional to time served. The longer the Dem has been entrenched in the halls of the Capitol, the worse he or she will be. God save us from the Bidens and the Kennedys.
We desperately need term limits in Congress.
The Ghost of Santa Claus
According to the Founders, white zygotes have more rights than African American/Native American adults. It’s in the time-travel related section of the Federalist Papers, which unfortunately was lost when the Nazi time travelers went back and tried to kill off as many of the Founders as possible. (They nearly succeeded in getting all of them, too- how many of you can remember that great early American statesman, Jacob Jebediah Johnston? None, I’d imagine- killing his mother worked out for them. Luckily, Scalia saved a couple of the lesser Founders, like Jefferson, Hamilton, and Franklin. Otherwise, we’d probably all be speaking Cockney right now.)
John Cole
I am not really sure what i believe in anymore, since everyuthing I thought I believed in has turned out to be bullshit.
The Ghost of Santa Claus
Biden intervened to keep a personal friend of mine from getting back-door drafted back to Iraq. In a small state like Delaware, those kinds of gestures have far-reaching impact. As far as I’m personally concerned, he can stay in the Senate until he’s 150 years old. Or dies. Whichever comes first. (I don’t live there anymore, so I can’t vote for him. OTOH, most of my immediate family still lives there, and I told them the story, so…)
Yes, that’s right, folks- Santa is from Delaware. Specifically, he was a Lenne Lenape who converted to Christianity when Christ visited the New World, and was rewarded for his fervor by being permitted to administer beatings and toys to the children of early medieval Europe. Now you know the true story- I’m not an elf, I’m a Delawarean. And a zombie, too, but that came later.
Ho, ho, ho, bitches!
The Ghost of Santa Claus
There, there. You were right about the social issues, but you voted for the Party that never agreed with you about them anyway. The power-hungry party that spouted pretty rhetoric they never agreed with, as opposed to the rational, moderate party that never gets the votes of enough of the Americans who agree with them on the issues.
The Other Steve
I don’t understand this disaster talk. Frankly, I don’t think it would matter much.
The goal should be fair minded justices, and if you look at Leahy and the other Democrats they have no problems with fair minded conservatives. It’s the kooks they don’t like, the ones who practice judicial activism from the bench. Guys like Scalia, etc.
Andrew
Cole:
No, the people who you believed in turned out to be bullshitters. Your core beliefs have aquitted themselves quite well. You’re just catching up to them now, is all.
The Ghost of Santa Claus
Come on, be fair to Scalia. If you had a time machine, you might tend to accept hints from Madison et al on statutory interpretation, too. (Then again, wasn’t Benjamin Rush anti-death penalty? Of course, he was kinda nutty, so Scalia is right to ignore him. Plus, if you met him in person maybe he smelled or something, and the other Founders didn’t like him.)
Steve
Well, Ghost of Santa Claus, of course I’d expect you to support the Democrat, just like all the other dead voters do.
Punchy
No, for this I called you partisan:
If that doesn’t sound like “He’ll be disaster because I hate all Democrats”, I don’t know what does. But I’m very happy with your explanation in your 11:48 post.
We’re not trying to be asshats–we just want to you back up/explain your claims. You did. Thank you.
As for this:
Oh, just STFU. Don’t come late to the party and then start laying down the rules. Mr. Cole knew what I was getting at, and addressed it.
The Ghost of Santa Claus
You know, 150 isn’t even that old, to someone who’s dead. Especially not when that dead person died at the age of 2006, either. (That’s right- me and Christ have the same birthday. No wonder He chose me to bear witness unto the hearts of children. We all know how well THAT turned out, though. Shit.)
Jack Roy
You’re late to home room. Don’t make me write this up.
Punchy, that hurts my feelings.
Punchy
Like Britney Spears marrying Kevin Federline….
Cindy Sheehan glad-handing (faux-frenching?) Hugo Chavez…
Randy Moss playing for Art Shell…
Pb
Heh. Just wait until you meet Darrell…
scarshapedstar
Oh my god, we not might end up with a Supreme Court packed with morons who want to ban abortion.
What’ll we do?!?!
The Asshole Formerly Known as GOP4Me
Pray for the liberal Justices to die, I guess.
It worked out last time, anyway.
Krista
Yep. And our Prime Minister still hasn’t offered him a formal apology, as far as I know, because all that crap happened under Martin. Harper is conveniently forgetting that he was leader of the opposition at the time, and was quite gung-ho about sending Arar away.
Tony Alva
Until I read this post, I had almost given up reading this blog. I thought Tim F. had killed you, taken Tunch, and hid your body under your desk. This post explains your recent rants and I feel much the same way.