Text 14114, 110 rader
Skriven 2005-07-14 13:27:02 av Alan Hess
Ärende: Dems muddled
====================
My good deed for the day - a column that should make the conservatives in the
echoes happy.  :-)
*********


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-op.court14jul14,1,1209702.story?c
oll=bal-pe-opinion
Democrats' disarray muddies court fight


By Jonathan Turley

July 14, 2005

IN ONE of the most gripping scenes from Braveheart, thousands of Scottish
yeomen face the professional army of the English King Longshanks. Stripped to
the waist and painted blue, the yeomen spoil for a fight, daring the English to
join them in battle. The problem was their leadership, conniving lords who were
equally determined to avoid a battle with Longshanks and negotiated for their
own interests.

This week, the scene seems eerily familiar for some Democrats who seem more
ready to fight than their leadership.

Millions of dollars have been raised and Democratic voters are spoiling for a
fight over the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice to replace Sandra Day
O'Connor. Yet they have been given a daily diet of statements from Democratic
leaders that seem intent on not only avoiding a fight but also embracing
candidates who would be anathema to the Democratic base.

As the White House comes closer to a nomination, the Democratic Senate appears
in near-total disarray. Conflicting statements from Democratic leaders appear
to be ferocious one day and fawning the next. What is clear is that there is a
dangerous and growing disconnect between Democratic leaders and their base.

Historically, the only successful opposition campaigns to Supreme Court
nominees have been marked by tight discipline and a single consistent, coherent
position - such as the defeat of Robert H. Bork in 1987. Democratic senators
appeared to understand this principle when they held a summit before the start
of the second Bush term to develop a single, unified strategy. Yet, since the
fight over the filibuster rule, shifting Democratic positions have been not
just inexplicable but incoherent.

Consider the filibuster proposals. The Democratic senators initially laid out a
clear, principled position that they could not allow a vote on at least four of
the pending appellate judges. While some of us did not agree with that
position, we could at least understand it. Then the Democratic senators
suggested that they would agree to allow the Republicans to have up-or-down
votes on some of these candidates if the GOP agreed to bar some others. As part
of this deal, they left it up to the Republicans to pick who would be confirmed
and who would be rejected.

The Republicans rightfully called foul about such a crude head count. It was a
position entirely divorced from principle. Then came the filibuster deal
itself. Seven Democratic senators agreed to a proposal that protected the right
of the filibuster while allowing some candidates to be confirmed. The result
was a disaster for the Democrats. To this day, most people cannot figure out
what the Democrats got from the deal. The four candidates that the Democrats
had vowed to filibuster as the previously deemed "worst of the worst" were
allowed to be confirmed, while the Democrats promised (according to some of the
signatories) not to filibuster any nominee on the basis of ideology. At the
time, Minority Leader Harry Reid heartily praised the deal and the dealmakers
for a masterful and historic agreement. Now, the Democrats are facing either a
breach of the agreement by voting on the basis of ideology or a vote with
Republicans to prevent a filibuster under the prior agreement.

Senator Reid's announcement that he would support conservative stalwart Antonin
Scalia for chief justice continues the confusion. While Mr. Reid was right
about Justice Scalia's qualifications for such a position, his statement
appeared to take fellow Democratic senators - and certainly the Democratic base
that has long demonized the justice - by surprise.

When Justice O'Connor resigned, the confusion only deepened. Senator Reid
announced that he was recommending that the president should appoint one of the
following Republican senators to replace her: Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike
DeWine of Ohio, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Michael D. Crapo of
Idaho. His proposal bordered on the bizarre for many Democrats. Mr. Reid
offered little reason why these senators have the legal background to justify
such an appointment for the Supreme Court - let alone how their views mesh with
basic party positions on abortion and other issues.

Soon after Mr. Reid's proposal for the appointment of his colleagues, he
dropped another bombshell - he thought U.S. Attorney General Alberto R.
Gonzales would make a qualified candidate. Mr. Reid explained that, after all,
"he's attorney general of the United States and a former Texas judge." The
problem is that Mr. Reid and most Democratic senators voted against Mr.
Gonzales for the post.

After vehemently opposing Mr. Gonzales only recently for a political
appointment, Mr. Reid was saying that he could support him for a lifetime
appointment where he would interpret the law for the nation. Mr. Reid's
position on Mr. Gonzales has led to a further erosion of credibility for the
Democrats. For Democratic stalwarts, Mr. Gonzales appeared marginally pro-life
but he also appeared strongly pro-torture.

Of course, none of this bodes well for Democratic voters. In Braveheart, the
character of William Wallace was able to undermine the secret deals with the
Scottish lords and force a defining battle. Unless a Democratic Wallace appears
or some sense of organization materializes, this is a fight that may be over
before it starts. For now, the coming battle may be best described by that
English bard as "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George
Washington University and teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme
Court.

Copyright + 2005, The Baltimore Sun

--- Msged/2 6.0.1
 * Origin: tncbbs.no-ip.com - Try the CROSSFIRE echo - all welcome (1:261/1000)