Bork: The Result of Sham Consultation
Bork: The Result of Sham Consultation
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 Ginsburg. In the 1992 book “Matters of Principle,” former Biden counsel Mark Gitenstein discusses the sham consultation process Reagan employed for the Bork nomination.
Decide who you really want in advance:
Baker and Meese spoke over the weekend and agreed to meet on Monday by the end of that meeting Bork was the next nominee to the Supreme Court unless he met determined and effective opposition on the Hill…(pg. 35)
After already making your choice, present the minority with a fake list of “potential” candidates:
Baker and Meese would take a pro forma list of nominees up to share with Biden and the Senate leadership In the meeting, Meese and Baker presented Biden and Byrd with a list of ten nominees, appropriately sprinkled with blacks and women. Some names were included only to make the list appear bipartisan. (pg. 36)
When the objections are raised, ignore them:
When they got to Bork, it was clear they had reached the real purpose of the meeting
[snip]
Baker pressed on: “What’s the problem Joe.”
“His views. I’m worried where he will take the court.”
Neither Meese nor Baker responded[snip]
[Biden] interrupted, “if you go ahead with Bork, it’s going to be a longer summer.”
Meese and Baker were satisfied as the meeting broke up. They had not asked Biden directly what he would do on Bork, but it should have been obvious. But then again it did not seem to matter to them…(pg. 36)
If Bush employs a similar consultation strategy, expect a similar result.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
If Bush 43 follows the same advise as Bush 41-you can expect a confirmation. Remember, 43 has the majority.
July 2nd, 2005 at 10:58 amBush probably would consult if the Dems showed any willingness to compromise. But he knows and everyone knows liberals will oppose his choice no matter what. It’s the only thing they have going for them at this point.
July 2nd, 2005 at 1:31 pmThe president isn’t going to let anyone get in his great scheme to have a legacy. Expect the nomination to be a result of not only partisan politics but also hubris.
The nominee will be somebody that will propagate President Bush’s ideas long after his term is over.
July 2nd, 2005 at 1:40 pmThe Democrats lost this fight last November when the lost their chief obstructionist in charge, Tom Daschle. It is point game set, and match. The moonbats have yet to come to terms with their impotence. hahahahahaha:D
July 2nd, 2005 at 3:15 pmCameron,
So you prefer an unbalanced Supreme Court?
I personally don’t worry too much about it as gay marriage and abortion does not apply to me.
The people who do fight to abolish gay marriage and abortion are the ones who should be worried.
Because, those who oppose usually are the closet type and at some point will be wanting to come out of the closet and exercise these rights.
It’s funny how a decision to support something so adamantly can come back and kick you in the rear.
Look at Cheney and Keyes, ha, they bred the people they hate most.
I’ll bet Bill O’Reilly fought hard for sexual harrassment in the workplace laws.
I think it’s funny how life works sometimes.
July 2nd, 2005 at 4:00 pmHey I love the new look of Think Progress!
July 2nd, 2005 at 4:11 pm[i]So you prefer an unbalanced Supreme Court?[/i]
Unbalanced according to whom, you? The fact remains Republican support is in large part based on this very issue. A return to interpreting the constitution according to what it actually says and means, not what some judge thinks it should say or mean. It is not about any one policy.
[i]I personally don’t worry too much about it as gay marriage and abortion does not apply to me.
The people who do fight to abolish gay marriage and abortion are the ones who should be worried.[/i]
Gay marriage would need to be esablished before it could be abolished. How many Democrats are on record endorsing the establishment of gay marriage? Do you think the policy of supporting the esablishment of gay marriage helps or hurts the Democrats?
[i]Because, those who oppose usually are the closet type and at some point will be wanting to come out of the closet and exercise these rights.[/i]
Oh please that is weak, did you just call me a homophobe? Perhaps I should go on an inner journey to examine my soul to discover if that is true. Mmmmmmm nope I prefer adult human females.
[i]It’s funny how a decision to support something so adamantly can come back and kick you in the rear.[/i]
Yep like the decesion to politisize the confirmation of nominees to SCOTUS it’s where we get the verb to Bork someone.
[i]Look at Cheney and Keyes, ha, they bred the people they hate most.
I’ll bet Bill O’Reilly fought hard for sexual harrassment in the workplace laws.
I think it’s funny how life works sometimes.[/i]
It is funny how life works sometimes consider the fact that it is progresives who are killing themselves off at Planned Parenthood clinics.
July 2nd, 2005 at 4:41 pmBalance Suzy? How about we have a court that can read the constitution? I hope O’Connor gives the dice she used to make her decisions to the Smithsonian. Or was it a windsock?
July 2nd, 2005 at 4:54 pmI’m glad you “don’t worry too much about it,” because this tragic chapter in American history is coming to a close. Using your logic then you should want the most hard-core conservative we can find, because he will have the most to hide. Yes good thinking, be sure to go with that guys, we are worried about that really, you would really put one over on us then; )
fake but accurate is right. The Constitution is the Holy Law of the Land. It and the Bible are to be reveered and never interpretated. They are meant to be followed litterally! Too bad it will never happen, tho. Jeff Gannon is Johnny Gosch! And he will soon invoke the Second Coming of Jesus Christ and implicate the CIA in his Kidnapping, which will be transmogrified into the new pardigm of the New Millenial Crucifixion!~. Praise BE To YahWeh! The communists have been met in the Loo!
http://www.armchairsubversive.com/Johnny_Gosch.htm
“It is funny how life works sometimes consider the fact that it is progresives who are killing themselves off at Planned Parenthood clinics.”
It’s all part of our sevret plan! Shhhhh! Don’t tell them Cameroon, you idiot!
Join The John Birch Society Today! Abort all Progressives!
July 3rd, 2005 at 4:48 am“Or was it a windsock?”
No, it was a sockmonkey. You know, that crusty one under your bed that stands up all by itself.
July 3rd, 2005 at 9:12 amI really hate to remind the obvious neocon trolls, but there’s far more to any judge’s rendering a decision than merely what the Constitution’s words “say”.
July 3rd, 2005 at 11:52 amThere’s such a thing as “precedent” which has always been part and parcel of this country’s vision of judicial review. While a precedent can be viewed as contrary to Constitutional principles (i.e., same-sex marriage), the Constitution does not require judges ignore precedent when ruling on cases.
Another aspect of a Court decision involves non-Constitutional law. Every year, the Congress of the United States passes hundreds, if not thousands, of laws which are not enshrined in the body of the Constitution, yet hold the same legal weight as any Article or Amendment found in the Constitution. Those who fall into the misguided belief that simply amending the Constitution means that law remains permanent and immutable have to look at one Amendment in particular (the 18th) to see that’s not the case.
Also, the Constitution is not really as cut-and-dry as some foolish minds would have everyone believe. If one takes the EXACT words of the Constitution AND the intent of the Founders (as their own words in other documents show), then Clarence Thomas has no business being on the High Court, as the Founders didn’t include an outright statement of any Blacks having the status of citizen. By the same consideration, there’s no allowance for allowing a woman on the High Court either. But we’ve gone beyond the simple thinking that the Founders used when writing the Constitution. The Founders’ intent was for the Constitution to be a living document, that would be flexible enough to change as the times changed. The Founders, however, did NOT state an intention that the Constitution should ever become a list of restrictions or prohibitions; that when a change was to be made, it should be to expand rights to cover society’s changes, and not find manners to limit existing rights.
This notion of “what the Founders intended” and “what the Constitution says and means” is pure fantasy. No one really knows what “intent” existed–we know what the Founders (individually, it should be noted) wrote in personal letters and diaries and public commentaries (such as Jefferson’s famous letter to the Danbury Baptists–the one which explicitly stated Jefferson’s belief in a “wall of separation” which far-right religious critics assail as meaningless since it’s not “actually” in the Constitution; unfortunately, that is a historic document which shows Jefferson’s “intent”). The argument for a literal reading of the Constitution is specious. Such a reading was the whole basis for the infamous Dred Scott Decision (and for some reason, Clarence Thomas can’t seem to understand the irony behind his desire for “strict constructionism”) and the Plessy v Ferguson case (from the Constitution’s own words, there’s nothing that prohibited the former slave states from requiring that blacks be segregated from whites on trains or even requiring separate facilities, from water fountains to schools, for blacks and whites). I can’t think of a serious legal mind who would accept either of those hideous decisions being acceptable by a contemporary court which didn’t have the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments (of course, Plessy was argued even though those 3 Amendments had been part of the Constitution for nearly 30 years), but there’s more than just those amendments which would keep a contemporary court from rendering the same decisions originally reached–that “more” is a change in society’s feelings towards Blacks (and minority groups, in general). Our courts agree that the unwritten idea of “equal justice for all” applies to the Constitution, regardless of the popularity that a part of that “all” may have.
Look up originalist Joe, and thanks for the tip.
July 3rd, 2005 at 4:48 pm