Replies: 5 Comments

Posted by: scooter On Thursday, April 14th

the history i was referring to was the second term president, with a same-party congress, going into mid-terms. Check it out; it's not pretty.

I don't care for the Republicans' euphemisms ("nuclear option"; "shock & awe") but I think there's a worthwhile, and saleable message: Enough is enough. One hopes that at some point the electorate realizes Democrats invented obstructionism in the first place.

And despite the tactical games, it is (on the issues) liberals who have the "extremist" problem. If they want to march Ted Kennedy and Chuck Schumer out to shoot down nominees, they'll continue to look ridiculous to moderate voters.

Posted by: Nathan_Smith@ksg03.harvard.edu">Nathan Smith On Thursday, April 14th

Well, you may be right. But I think the Republicans have a good chance at picking up seats in 2006. Clinton picked up seats in 1998. Bush picked up seats in 2002. Recent history seems to hold different lessons than you say history generally does.

The thing is, the Democrats are now behaving in a manner similar to the Gingrich Congress in 1994-96, fiercely defying the president, trying to render him a "lame duck" early, obstructing, threatening to shut down the government, refusing to consider any compromise, and so on. Of course, unlike the Republican Congress in 1994, they just lost an election rather than winning one.

Moreover, it will be a bit more difficult to label Bush's judicial nominees "extremist" if the Republicans show their lack of extremism by not overturning the filibuster. If, say, McCain, Hagel, and a couple of others vote against overturning the filibuster, but then they turn around and say, "Even though I didn't want to change the procedural rules to get them in, I think these are great judges and strongly support their nominations," people are unlikely to be too easily swayed by the claim that the judges are extremist. Add to that that they've seen gay marriage imposed by judicial fiat in more and more places, and for most Americans, "extremist conservative judge" is likely to seem like an oxymoron.

Probably this is partly a function of what you consider the most important issues. It's likely that more Republicans will get elected in 2006 if they do not overturn the filibuster on judges, than if they do. This will help advance the rest of the Republican agenda. But if judges are your main issue, we're more likely to get the judicial nominees through if we do it now than if we take it to the people one more time. I'm mostly a strong supporter of Republican economic and foreign policies; on judges, I don't care quite as much.

Posted by: scooter On Thursday, April 14th

I think your ad and its messaged would be non-starters politically. The flip-side is easy enough: send us some judges who aren't ideaologues. Now, I don't agree with this but I think you're fooling yourself if you think tha's a political battle that conservatives would win.

I don't think waiting is an answer. A two-term president having Congress on his side has a unique (and fleeting) chance to shape the courts -- and in this instance, to roll back or stem the damage done by liberal nominees. (conservative "activism" today means not agreeing with the liberal activism of yesterday). I don't think you wait, especially since (if history's any guide) the Repubs are likely to lose seats in 2006.

If you're concerned about democracy, consider that the "most dangerous branch" has inflicted enugh damage already, and this is a unique chance to put the right people on the bench. The politics are temporary; reparing the bench will last years.

Posted by: Nathan Smith On Wednesday, April 13th

scooter:

Good points. I think Republicans should wait out of a mix of self-interest and the public good. Self-interest, because Republicans are likely to be a minority in the future, and to be able to filibuster judicial nominees might be a useful safeguard against really outrageous nominations; and also because empty judicial spots gives voters a reason to elect more Republicans in 2006. I'll leave it to the campaign to design the exact ads, but I can fantasize. "By refusing to endorse judges who are inclined to distinguish between the law and personal opinion, the Democrats have been gradually stripping the judiciary bare." Show pictures of empty judge seats and talk about backlogs of cases. Then conclude with: "Vote GOP, and get the courts back in business."

The public good, because the law needs to have a certain sense of authority behind it, and this gets lost when decisions are made amidst fierce political squabbling by politicians whose mandate to advance their judicial philosophy onto the courts is widely considered to be narrow. I think the Democrats are fools to fight Bush's nominees, but if they choose to do so, they are temporarily authorized to represent a big proportion of the country. If it takes another election to drive home the lesson that the public doesn't approve of obstruction, and make a few of the remaining Democrats consent to the judicial nominees, so be it.

Posted by: scooter On Wednesday, April 13th

I'm not sure where I stand re: the silly-named "nuclear option" however, I'm sure I don't understand this: "wait for a more decisive mandate from the people before we resolve the question of whether America will be democratic, or whether we will move towards a system more like Iran's"

why "should" Republicans do this? because it would be impolitic to assert power as a majority? As a courtesy?

and "before we resolve" seems a little loose-lipped. The question's resolved already - our system isnt to drift one way or another; the Constitution says otherwise. The point of the Constitution is that the mandate "to be democratic" is built it; it's not subject to the electorate's whims and can't be part of any "mandate" or taken away as such.