[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
(s)Elections See other (s)Elections Articles Title: Conservative Distrust of McCain Lingers Over ’05 Deal on Judges WASHINGTON — 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. Even some colleagues now backing Mr. McCain consider the judicial agreement a sore subject. “We had the votes to put both parties on the spot that whoever is president, Republican or Democrat, has a right to appoint and we have the right to vote up or down,” said Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and a former Judiciary Committee chairman. Mr. McCain and his allies say they remain proud of the deal they cut because it avoided a potential constitutional crisis in the Senate and led to the confirmation of two Supreme Court justices named by President Bush, as well as several federal appeals court judges. They say there is no certainty that Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican who was then the Senate majority leader, had the votes to win approval of his rules change, which was dubbed the nuclear option because of the chaos it was predicted to cause. With the possibility of a Democratic White House and Congress in the future, Mr. McCain said protecting the right of the minority party to force the majority to produce 60 votes to confirm an objectionable judge might not seem like such a bad idea. “Find me a Republican senator who now supports 51 votes for the confirmation of a judge,” Mr. McCain said. Mr. McCain’s recent clash with The New York Times over his reported ties to a lobbyist appeared to have bolstered the senator, at least temporarily, with some in the conservative wing. But the question of judicial appointments is a matter of fundamental concern to conservatives who see the courts as a counterbalance to the shifting politics of Congress and the executive branch. Some Republicans say they fear that a President McCain, faced with a Democratic Congress, could use judicial appointments as a bargaining chip to achieve policy compromises. Conservatives say Mr. McCain needs to make it clear that he intends to name like-minded judges and to hit the issue much harder than he has when appealing to Republicans with doubts about him. “He needs to do some formulation of ‘No more Souters,’ ” said Richard Land, an official with the Southern Baptist Convention, referring to Justice David H. Souter, an appointee of the first President Bush who has been a disappointment to the right. Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, broke with Mr. McCain over the Gang of 14 but has endorsed his presidential bid. Mr. Cornyn said he would encourage the Arizonan to put more emphasis on his views on judges. “That is one issue that cuts across all aspects of the Republican coalition,” Mr. Cornyn said. “I will encourage him to make it a prominent part of his pitch.” The Gang of 14 is hardly the only point of contention between Mr. McCain and some conservative factions. His signature issue, campaign finance reform, is anathema to many conservatives, as was his push for comprehensive immigration legislation. Some conservatives say his role in brokering the judicial compromise may rank behind those two in generating right-flank ire and is fading as an issue. But to others, it remains a telling moment for Mr. McCain, who has been a supporter of Republican judicial choices but has not typically been a central player in the nomination fights. The underlying fight erupted after Republicans took back control of the Senate in 2003 and Democrats filibustered 10 of Mr. Bush’s judicial choices, characterizing them as too conservative. Republicans grew increasingly frustrated over their inability to force votes on the candidates and, in 2005, began threatening to seek a simple majority vote on a change in the rules so that filibusters against judicial nominees would be prohibited. The prospect consumed the Senate, and Democrats threatened procedural retaliation. Hoping to head off a confrontation, a group of seven Republicans and seven Democrats began meeting to forge an alternative. As the floor vote loomed, the Gang of 14 unveiled their agreement, clearing the way for votes on three of five stalled appeals court nominees. They agreed that future filibusters could be waged only in extraordinary circumstances. The steam went out of the filibuster movement; two Supreme Court nominees, John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito Jr., moved through the Senate in the ensuing months — Mr. Roberts later in 2005 and Mr. Alito in 2006. “We did the Senate a service,” said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, a principal in the Gang of 14 along with Mr. McCain and the Democrats Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Mr. McCain, who backed an unsuccessful filibuster of a Clinton judicial nominee in 1994, has begun to discuss his support for Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito as illustrative of the types of judges he would seek out. “I am proud of my advocacy of Alito and Roberts,” Mr. McCain said. “A whole lot of people applauded what we did. We got them all done without a filibuster.”
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Brian S (#0)
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡
It really is weird for so-called "conservatives" to hold it against a candidate that he opposed ending the filibuster. The immediate issue may have been just filibusters of judicial confirmations. But, once the filibuster was ended over that, there was certainly no principled reason to preserve filibusters of other presidential nominations, and it probably would just have been a matter of time before filibusters of legislation were ended as well. And, while Bush may have paid lip service to the pro-life cause, the real determining factor in his judicial nominations was whether the nominees would support executive power, especially over things like detention and torture. Not a very "conservative" cause.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||