How Clinton Treated Hatch
How Clinton Treated Hatch
When President Clinton made his two judicial nominations to the Supreme Court, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) was the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. The following is an excerpt from Hatch’s autobiography:
[It] was not a surprise when the President called to talk about the appointment and what he was thinking of doing.
President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, a name that had been bouncing around in the press. Bruce, a well-known western Democrat, had been the governor of Arizona and a candidate for president in 1988. Although he had been a state attorney general back during the 1970s, he was known far more for his activities as a politician than as a jurist. Clinton asked for my reaction.
I told him that confirmation would not be easy. At least one Democrat would probably vote against Bruce, and there would be a great deal of resistance from the Republican side. I explained to the President that although he might prevail in the end, he should consider whether he wanted a tough, political battle over his first appointment to the Court.
Our conversation moved to other potential candidates. I asked whether he had considered Judge Stephen Breyer of the First Circuit Court of Appeals or Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. President Clinton indicated he had heard Breyer’s name but had not thought about Judge Ginsberg.
I indicated I thought they would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while liberal, they were highly honest and capable jurists and their confirmation would not embarrass the President. From my perspective, they were far better than the other likely candidates from a liberal Democrat administration.
In the end, the President did not select Secretary Babbitt. Instead, he nominated Judge Ginsburg and Judge Breyer a year later, when Harry Blackmun retired from the Court. Both were confirmed with relative ease.
How will President Bush treat Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the current ranking member of the Senate Judiciary committee?
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Wow. What was Clinton thinking? But this means that Bush shouldn’t be able just to give people a heads up and call that consultation.
July 1st, 2005 at 2:58 pmClinton had class. Let’s see if Bush has any. I wonder if Bush will say, “Hey Leahy, Cheney has a message for you!”
July 1st, 2005 at 3:03 pmDespite all the crazy talk about the flaming liberals who want leftist extremists on the federal bench, the fact is that the Democratics presidents have nominated mainstream, able jurists. That’s not the case with Republican presidents. Do you remember Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas? Or, the recent appointment of the inept and extremists like Pryor, Brown, and Owen? Now, the name of “Mr. Torture is OK” Alberto Gonzales is being mentioned to replace O’Connor or, later, Renquist. Who’s bringing in the lunatic fringe? But, unfortunately, the lunatic fringe is not marginal any more. It has influence and power and it is increasingly becoming the sturdy political base for Bush and the far right Republicans. It will remain so until the American voters render a severe verdict next year and move the country back to the center.
July 1st, 2005 at 3:28 pmSenator Hatch did not threaten President Clinton with a filibuster, and in fact Hatch has NEVER voted to filibuster a judicial nominee. Nor was Hatch suggesting any nominee inconsistent with President Clinton’s liberal political philosophy.
Justice Ginsburg was by no means a moderate or a centrist. For seven years she had been general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). She had written that prostitution is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by the Constitution. She had written that perpetuation of single-sex jails should be rejected. She had written that prohibiting bigamists from voting or holding office encroaches impermissibly upon private relationships. She had written that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts perpetuate stereotyped sex roles. And, she had written that, “Replacing ‘Mother’s Day’ and ‘Father’s Day’ with a ‘Parents’ Day’ should be considered, as an observance more consistent with a policy of minimizing traditional sex-based differences in parental roles.�
July 1st, 2005 at 4:40 pmThe GOP recognized that a president’s nominees should only be rejected for compelling reasons related to fitness, and the Senate voted 96-3 for Ginsburg.
“Despite all the crazy talk about the flaming liberals who want leftist extremists on the federal bench, the fact is that the Democratics presidents have nominated mainstream, able jurists.”
Yeah, Ruth Bader Ginsburg…”mainstream”…please look at her ACLU connections and tell me how that is mainstream.
July 1st, 2005 at 4:45 pmHow will Bush treat Pat Leahy? Probably the way that Cheney did on the Senate floor.
July 1st, 2005 at 4:54 pmWhat do Republicans hate about the ACLU? Is it the ‘Civil Liberties’ part?
July 1st, 2005 at 4:54 pmHe will probably treat Leahy with false civility but with the same ultimate message that Cheney delivered to Leahy on the Senate floor. We all remember that, don’t we? He’s certainly not going to listen to any suggestions Leahy has.
July 1st, 2005 at 5:00 pmI see beemer beat me to that Senate floor remark!
July 1st, 2005 at 5:00 pmMost of the posts give the president too much credit – I’m guessing he has no intention of engaging the “consultation” recommendation of the recent bipartisan block of the nuclear option. His polling indicates what many see as pig-headed stubborn is considered strong and steadfast, even among those who might disagree with individual policy decisions.
Prediction: this is going to be ugly and testorone rich.
loosely related: http://www.hairytruth.blogspot.com
July 1st, 2005 at 5:17 pm“please look at her ACLU connections and tell me how that is mainstream.”
Based on Andrew’s summary, above, of her writings, she sounds like a cool lady.
Oh, and Hatch never filibustered a nominee because he never *had* to — not while the blue slip rule was in effect.
July 1st, 2005 at 11:34 pmYep, this is how Bushie will get his third term. That is if we just sit here and allow him another minute.
votetoimpeach.org
July 2nd, 2005 at 2:06 am[...] We’ve previously discussed how President Bill Clinton’s close consultation with Sen. Orrin Hatch – the ranking minority member on the Judiciary Committee at the time — lead to swift, bipartisan confirmations of Breyer and Ginsberg. In the 1992 book “Matters of Principle,â€? former Biden counsel Mark Gitenstein discusses the sham consultation process Bush 41 employed for the Bork nomination. [...]
July 2nd, 2005 at 10:35 am#6 – Exactly, Beemer. You beat me to it.
July 2nd, 2005 at 1:18 pmWell, let’s see here: Clinton was still able to get through not one, but two Justices who were liberal on all the important issues: Abortion, affirmative action, homosexuality, etc. So by all means, let Leahy reciprocate. Let him put forward two pro-life originalist nominees who would pass with flying colors.
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:23 pm[...] The second point is that Bill Clinton reached out to Republicans in ways that George Bush likely won’t reach out to Democrats. It’s not just, as this site has already pointed out, that Clinton actually listened to Orrin Hatch’s advice, while nobody expects Bush to give Pat Leahy the time of day. It’s also that Clinton chose Justices who weren’t traditional liberals in the Brennan-Marshall mold. Breyer and Ginsburg don’t find welfare rights in the Constitution. They don’t proffer bold new procedural protections for criminal defendants. They’ve applied the death penalty, though they’ve tried to do it fairly. They are, to use Cass Sunstein’s category, “judicial minimalists,� which nobody ever called Justice Brennan. Democrats’ acceptance of that minimalism represents a shift from traditional liberal jurisprudence that roughly parallels the “New Democratic� reform of traditional liberal politics. [...]
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:47 pmoconnor was voted in 99-0…bush is NOT likely to do it the easy way at this late stage of the game
July 4th, 2005 at 11:42 am> Breyer and Ginsburg don’t find welfare rights in the Constitution.
Wasn’t Ginsburg the lead attorney in the landmark Goldberg v. Kelly case?
July 4th, 2005 at 10:34 pmAs I said on the other thread, Clinton was still able to get through not one, but two Justices who were liberal on all the most important issues: Abortion, affirmative action, homosexuality, etc. So by all means, let Leahy reciprocate. Let him put forward two pro-life originalist (but not extreme anti-New-Dealer) nominees who would pass with flying colors. Actually, that describes just about every one of Bush’s possible choices except for Janice Rogers Brown.
July 5th, 2005 at 11:21 amSeveral problems with this comparison:
1. The Dems were not in the majority in the Senate when either vacancy occurred during the Clinton administration, so they had to take into account who could be confirmed in a floor vote (note: not a filibuster). The Republican Senators had just as much right to vote to reject someone in a floor vote as Clinton did to nominate them. The Republicans are not in the same position today. They are virtually certain to prevail in a floor vote.
2. Clinton could not claim a mandate from his election for appointing liberal justices because he was never elected with a majority of votes, only a plurality. In contrast, the Republicans in the Senate circa the 1990’s *could* claim a mandate for blocking very liberal justices since they were in the majority. Bush can certainly claim a mandate from the 2004 election for appointing conservative justices (he did not hide his admiration for Scalia/Thomas), and the Republicans generally can claim a mandate for confirming them from controlling a majority of seats in the Senate.
3. Hatch told Clinton he could get a liberal confirmed but it would take a fight and Clinton decided he did not want the fight — he wanted to use his political capital elsewhere. The same applies to Bush, but Bush does not mind the fight: he wants to use his capital here. Ironically, it may end up being the legacy of the Democrats blocking Bush’s Social Security plans that he decides he has nothing to lose here — if his principal legislative goal is already dead, why not go for broke on the Supreme Court?
July 5th, 2005 at 3:24 pmIf you guys really believe that Clinton nominated “mainstream” jurists to the Supreme Court, then do you also believe that allowing states to take private property and transfer that property to other private owners in the name of public use (aka generating larger tax revenues) is a maintream concept. Aren’t liberals for the little guy?
July 5th, 2005 at 5:03 pm[...] Think Progress has a great little anecdote on how President Clinton treated Orrin Hatch, then the ranking minority member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Here’s a hint: not only did Clinton consult Hatch, but he eventually even nominated Hatch’s recommendations. [...]
July 6th, 2005 at 1:30 amHatch made recommendations that Clinton could live with. Even though they were decidedly liberal, Hatch looked at their capabilities as opposed to their ideology. Will Leahy do likewise? Suggest a conservative nominee based on their capabilities as opposed to their ideology?
July 6th, 2005 at 5:18 pmThe Senate looked to the ABA for a rating to characterize the capabilities of a jurist in past years. Would not all of President Bush’s nominations to the Courts of Appeals satisfy Mark’s suggestion for a nomination based on the capabilities, even Justive Rogers-Brown or Owen? If I am not mistaken all received high marks from the ABA. The problem is that Leahy lacks the courage to rise above his liberal blinders, and thus will not suggest any person other than a “moderate” – translated as a conservative liberal.
July 7th, 2005 at 3:05 pmDid I read in the second post that “Bill Clinton had class”
July 8th, 2005 at 12:04 pmIf class is getting a blowjob in the office that I pay for as a tax payer, or sexual harrassment of Paula Jones among other women. Is that the idea of class? Liberal class maybe? I think sexual harrassment is about as classless as one gets.
Given that 7 of 9 current Supremes are Republican appointees it’s hilarious to listen to caterwallin from the right about Judicial imperialism. Wake me when it’s over!
July 8th, 2005 at 12:58 pmWhich just goes to show that Repubs are looking more at qualifications than ideology. The nominees that the left has deemed too “radical” have either been drug the the ringer (Thomas) or outright kicked to the curb (Bork). Get back to me after Bush nominates a couple of people and let’s see how the Dems treat them.
July 9th, 2005 at 2:33 amDoesn’t it sting when Bush consistently goes against all the pre-conceived notions that dems have about him? Consulted 70 senators, chose a highly qualified, widely respected candidate, who was confirmed unanimously only two years ago. Can’t wait to see Chucky Schumer, Dicky Durbin, and Barbara Boxer screaming from the rafters about how this guy is the second coming of Hitler. What a joke the whole thing is.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:46 amI think this expert shows that the Republicans are typically open minded about the reality of a sitting President choosing whomever he decides fits with his ideology. Despite their differences, Republicans seems to understand and respect this role of the Presidency.
Democrats on the other hand, don’t seem to grasp this Presidential perrogative and want to stupidly fight to place a left-wing ideologue on the Bench. Despite all their wailing, it’s never going to happen. They need to wake up and get a dose of reality. No President can be expected to pick someone opposed to his own beliefs. All this “crying” over conservative nominees is undignified.
July 20th, 2005 at 10:01 pmloan
In your free time, take a look at the pages in the field of loan payment calculator home equity loans
July 21st, 2005 at 11:07 amJon,
In what universe are you living in where Ruth Bader Ginsburg faced a Republican controlled Senate for her nomination? I ask because in my universe, the Democratic party controlled the Senate 56-44 for both of the nominations made during Clinton’s term in office. Hatch was the ranking MINORITY member of the Senate Judiciary committee when this meeting was made.
Please stop spreading your conservative lies.
September 30th, 2005 at 10:09 pmdiet free loss pill weight
You are invited to visit some relevant pages in the field of best diet pill
October 4th, 2005 at 7:37 am1854
You can also check some information about 1755
November 4th, 2005 at 9:40 amCooking Recipes
Cooking Recipes
December 17th, 2005 at 3:01 pmXBOX 360
XBOX 360 games
December 17th, 2005 at 3:07 pmBrad Pitt
Brad Pitt
December 18th, 2005 at 7:00 amVerizon Ringtones
Verizon Ringtones
December 18th, 2005 at 7:01 am50Cent
50Cent
December 20th, 2005 at 6:50 pmamoxicillin…
adoption badge deciding daring blockhouse clutching:effectually medication http://medication.pills-sale.com/ …
January 12th, 2006 at 3:19 amOn President Clinton’s worst Day if Office.,.he has been the “Best President’ we have had in at least 40 years.
White Water, sex scandle, (and was that ever bogas, get real) He is the last of the presdients we can be proud of as a nation.
April 3rd, 2006 at 8:10 pm[...] While President Bush is not explicitly bound to uphold the filibuster compromise, his continued stonewalling, eerily reminiscient of his "consultation" with the U.N. prior to the invasion of Iraq, is hardly what a neutral observer would consider adequate consultation with the Senate. If anything, the Democrats have held to their end of the bargain by suggesting to president Bush names of nominees that they could accept – much like when Orrin Hatch suggested Ruth Bader Ginsberg to President Clinton instead of Clinton’s preferred nominee, then-Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. [...]
May 29th, 2006 at 11:47 ammeridia reviews meridia review
February 3rd, 2007 at 7:46 am