OJ: Reid's list was a joke. Mike Dewine? He is a joke and there would be riots by conservatives if Bush were to nominate him.

Powerline first quotes Orrin Hatch:

"President Clinton indicated he was leaning toward nominating Bruce Babbitt, his Secretary of the Interior, ... 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. ...

"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 Ginsburg.

"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."

Powerline then asks:

"... how Senator Kennedy, for example, would fill in the blanks: "I indicated I thought _____ and _____ would be confirmed easily. I knew them both and believed that, while conservative, they were highly honest and capable jurists." ...

"The futility of consulting with Senate Democrats is already apparent from the statements of Kennedy and others. Their position is that Bush must nominate a moderate, not a conservative, to avoid a knock-out battle. Hatch, by contrast, took it as a given that Clinton would nominate a liberal (and had the right to do so) and suggested well-qualified liberal jurists, one of whom is extremely liberal. ..."

Oh fabulous, Orrin Hatch takes credit for being a great statesman. There are reasons why the Republican party is considered the "stupid" party and Hatch may very well be one of those reasons. I don't think it's necessary to consult the Minority, but Bush should run some names (names He Bush likes) by 6 or 7 conservative Democrats to lock them into a commitment not to filibuster. Unfortunately they probably aren't as stupid as Hatch.

H-Man,

Maybe I am missing something but the whole point of Hatch's comments was that the president should name people he is comfortable with and the senators should respect him enough to name people who would meet that standard. After all it is the president who finally names the judges and they should be people he can support. Your comments to me mean nothing except that the LLL all seem to think the republicans are stupid but somehow we keep beating the LLL in all the elections. Now we find that Bush was smarter in college than Kerry was and at least he graduated rather than flunking out as Gore did. Kind of makes you wonder just who is stupid and how is not.

As to talking to conservative democrats, why bother since the dem leadership doesn't pay any attention to them anyway. Given the moonbat leadership of the dems in Congress and the Senate the president should probably just ignore them and make the republican leadership do their job for a change. At least that way we might get a supreme who actually pays attention to the Constitution.

PIMF

"who is not" rather than "how is not"!!

Wasn't Hatch in the majority at the time Clinton spoke to him about SC picks? That makes a difference as well. Clinton needed to make sure his choices would be confirmed so he would need to talk to a member of the majority and get his thoughts.

I don't think Kennedy et al understand that they are in the minority and can be out-voted. Unfortunately I don't think the republicans understand that the dems are in the minority either.

is this a Clash reference ?

cjm: knowing oj, I would guess it is.

kynna,

The Ginsburg nomination came in 1993, when Democrats controlled both the House and Senate. Bryer's nomination came following the 1994 changeover, when the Republicans were in control. Since Hatch's statement mentions both Ginsburg and Bryer, I'm assuming the remark was made in 1993, when Hatch would have been ranking minority menber on the Judiciary Committee.

And Justice Breyer, the one picked in 1994 after Republicans took over, is definitely much more moderate than Justice Ginsburg. He's occasionally been a crossover vote-- see the two Ten Commandments cases for an example.

Dick

Excuse me for using the word stupid to refer to Hatch. Republicans are in the majority now because Hatch was able give leadership to hot heads like Gingrich and Delay.

So we are left with the fact that the article says "some LIBERALS AND MSM MEMBERS are relying on an excerpt from Senator Orrin Hatch's autobiography regarding his talks with President Clinton about filling Supreme Court vacancies".

Are Republicans using the excerpt? No. You tell me why since you seem to think it exemplifies something beneficial to Republicans. Both Breyer and Ginsburg have those qualities that more than meet Leahy's definition of Liberal. Leahy's job in ushering them thru the Senate was considerably easier thanks to the endorsement of Hatch.

I'm sure that Leahy will best represent "liberal" Democrats if he were to say to Bush, "you know Mr President, I think you ought to check out this Janice Roger Brown or Miguel Estrada, I know both of them and they are honest and capable Judges who won't embarrass you". Bush: "gee, thanks Pat I haven't heard about those two".

Why go to conservative Democrats to see which "conservative" judges might be acceptable? To avoid a filibuster. The way it works is that since Democrats are depending on a filibuster to moderate Republican appointees, it is the right edge of the minority that has the leverage.

He shouldn't go to conservative Democrats. He should go to the Democratic leadership. There's no downside and a big upside.

The big upside in breaking off Liebermann, Landreau, both Nelsons, Baucus and Pryor is that you get a more conservative Judge, than if you go to Leahy, Schumer, Feinstein or Kennedy. (forget Reid, he's irrelevant because he will defer to those others) You expect those four will approve of any Judge, if they have the slightest inkling he/she would overule Roe v Wade? You are an optimist.

If I felt Leahy, Schumer, Feinstein, or Kennedy operated like Hatch, then I would agree with you. But regardless, approaching the Leadership or the more conservative Democrats are not mutually exclusive tactics. If the goal is to merely replace Sandra Day O'Connor, with someone who is identical to her, then I'm not interested in the subject.

No, I think if you ask them for lists of nominees they could vote for you force them to either preapprove your choice or make themselves laughingstocks. When Schumer produces a list with no Latinos, black women or observant Catholics he's handed you a weapon.

And thus we see why, even if the President gets all his future nominees an up or down vote, the McCain compromise was a disaster. Leftists can believe this swill about consulting with the minority, but all I want is the most conservative judges a majority of the Senate will sit still for.

h-man,

Giving Gingrich and Delay the leadership gave Clinton the only wins he had in actual legislation. The reform of welfare and NAFTA were both possible only because people like Gingrich and Delay first mooted them and Clinton was smart enough to pick up on them when he knew he couldn't defeat them. It became a win-win for Clinton only because of them.

I would hope that the dem leadership would show the ability to work with the president enough to find someone ethical and yet amenable to the president himself since he is the one to actually name the judges. With this crew that is highly unlikely however. When you have Blowhard Kennedy and Chuckie Schumer (D'Amato was right - he is a putz!!) and Leahy and Biden leading the charge for the "loyal" opposition, the likelihood of etting anything that is a consensus is highly unlikely. That crew wants only what it wants and nothing else. Screw the voters, they don't matter. Bring on the revolution!!

Meanwhile Bush has to find someone who he can live with and then has to mobilize the republican leadership to actually do its job. Not an easy task but then this president has always done what he said he would do so let's hope so.

David:

Haven't you ever had a job? When your superiors consult with you it's to make you feel good, not to get your input.

This is all just ludicrous; Bush should nominate who HE wants, peel off any conservative Democrats who will vote on his nominee and tell Kennedy, et. al. to take a flying leap. End of story.