December 16, 2002
COURT PACKING TIME:
GOP Sets Early Push For Judges (Paul Kane, December 16, 2002 , Roll Call)Senate Republicans are planning to move aggressively on judicial nominations at the start of the 108th Congress, hoping to hold three voting sessions in January to install new judges on the federal bench.Leading Senate Republicans emerged from a meeting with White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales last week with a framework for how they will push for nominees previously held up by the outgoing Democratic majority.
While final dates have not been set, some GOP leaders are pushing to hold votes on judges in the Judiciary Committee as early as Jan. 10, 2003, just three days after the new Congress convenes.
One function of the 24 hour news cycle is that a rather minor, though serious, story like Trent Lott's gaffe tends to get blown all out of proportion, particularly as regards its enduring meaning and effect. In the past few days you've even begun to see nonsensical stories about how it has derailed the electoral sweep of November and breathed new life into the Democrats. Granted this isn't a time when the GOP could force through a racially divisive law, but is anyone aware of any prior plans to do so? Meanwhile, over the next few months, the Administration has an opportunity, especially if a couple Supremes retire, to fundamentally recast the Federal judiciary. Democrats may knock off a couple here and there, but Republican control of the committee, the vulnerability of as many as 12 Democrat Senators in '04, and the sheer weight of the number of vacant seats to be filled will
overwhelm them eventually. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 16, 2002 8:36 AM
Mr. Judd;
I daresay that you underestimate the effect of the Lott Affair. The actual significance is irrelevant. What matters is that the episode will provide political cover for Democratic Party obstruction in the Senate, e.g. filibusters. As others have commented, the Donks won't have to look like they're just being sore losers when they derail President Bush's appointments and legislative efforts. Moreover, one of Lott's biggest failings is his stunning inability to fight effectively against the opposition and the blackmail potential of this whole incident. It is not for collegiality that Daschle was a defender of Lott.
AOG:
I'm afraid you'll have to explain to me how Democrats can filibuster everything because of something the former Majority Leader said, and why it will be helpful to say Tom Daschle, who has no black constituents and many "conservative" white ones, to keep pimping this issue.
Mr. Judd;
It's not a question of whether the Democrats can filibuster, it's a question of what kind of political price they'll pay for doing so. When it's useful, it will be the Democrats going after Lott, while the media conveniently forgets that any conservative ever objected to his statement (the only Republicans who will be quoted then will be Lott supporters). Just think Starr vs. Clinton. Any judicial nominee who doesn't support affirmative action, for instance, will held up as an example of the unrepentant segregationists of the Republican party. And the tag line, the thing that lets them get away with this far more than would otherwise be the case, will be Lott.
And let's not forget, that when it was Lott and Daschle "sharing" power during the divided Senate, Daschle rolled over Lott on a regular basis. If Lott's damaged by this then the rolling will be even easier next time.
I'm with the Midwest Conservative Journal, that if Lott had some actual accomplishments instead of looking like the archbishop of the Anglican Church, stolidly watching while the flock melts away, it might be different.
One can only look back in wonder at the horrific price that Democrats extracted from George W. Bush for the racism he showed personally in SC during the primaries--the Bob Jones appearance, support for the Confederate flag, etc....
It just doesn't work that way.