- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
search
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Political Hay
Stand and Deliver: Opposing Obama's Court Nominee
Be a leader.
These, said Jack Kemp, were the last words he always said to his children when they left the house.
In the shadow of his passing, Kemp's words should serve as a beacon to Republican members of the United States Senate and conservative activists in general as they await a nominee from President Obama to replace Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court.
Back in 1978, when then-Congressman Kemp was leading what would become the revolution that launched an American renaissance, he failed. Not only could he not overcome liberal resistance to the critical nature of tax cuts to working men and women, he couldn't even convince a number of Congressional Republicans to stand up for conservative economic principles.
Decades later, well after his ideas had long since swept America and the world to a period of unparalleled growth and opportunity, Kemp recalled that on 13 different occasions his efforts had been blocked in the U.S. House not just by the usual Democrats -- but by Republicans who simply would not stand up for the most elementary of conservative principles: that the economy works best when Americans -- not the government -- have control of their own money. In Kemp's own words, "some congressional Republicans colluded with liberal Democrats" and ran from conservative principles.
Such a moment is at hand again, providing Republicans in the U.S. Senate and conservative activists with a golden opportunity to stand up for the principles of conservative judicial philosophy. The question is, will they seize that moment? Or, as Kemp said of those Republican House members from 1978, will they "collude with liberal Democrats" in the Senate and "sacrifice the well-being of the nation…. in order to satisfy their biases," biases that mean abandoning conservative principle for short-term political gain?
It is precisely such a moment as the resignation of Justice David Souter that liberals have been waiting for -- a chance for a liberal president to make a new appointment to the Court. While they would surely have preferred to be replacing a conservative, the opportunity to appoint a younger, even more liberal version of Souter will do just fine. They have a liberal in the White House and are within a hair of a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. The thought that President Obama will somehow do anything less than maximize this opportunity to find a vigorous and skilled liberal nominee bears no relation to political reality. The president will find his liberal appointee, and that liberal appointee will be approved.
So the question for Senate Republicans and conservatives is as simple as it is stark. Do they, as was done with the appointments by President Clinton of Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer -- fold their political tent? Do they -- as some House Republicans did in sticking with the vividly failed economics of President Jimmy Carter over Jack Kemp, just collude with the Democrats? Because, well, it's so much safer politically? In this case, which involves conservative judicial philosophy as opposed to economic policy, will they just roll over for Obama as they did for Clinton? Will they in docile fashion applaud the nominee's surely wonderful credentials and vote overwhelmingly with the Democrats? Will they allow themselves to be intimidated because the nominee is a woman, a Hispanic, a black, a gay, a Catholic, a Jew, or some other? Even knowing that if the nominee were a conservative put forward by a conservative president and in any of these categories, liberals would quickly seek to savage that nominee not only politically but personally? (See confirmation of Thomas, Clarence.)
Or should they take Jack Kemp's words to heart? For that matter, should they take Kemp's own career as both tenacious quarterback and Congressman to heart -- and fight? Fight as Kemp always did -- openly, cleanly and above board, brimming with enthusiasm for the conservative principle at hand. Fight by generously praising the person Obama nominates, admiring their legal credentials, their fine family and education -- yet fervently opposing the new Court nominee's judicial philosophy in the name of conservative principles of jurisprudence?
It should be noted here that when President George W. Bush nominated John Roberts and Samuel Alito to be, respectively, chief justice and associate justice of the Court, it would have been hard to find two more superbly qualified nominees. By common consent within the legal community the two were among the best of their generation, if not the best. Yet both then-Senators Barack Obama and Joe Biden opposed Roberts and Alito regardless, going out of their way to make the case for liberals on the federal bench. Neither man shied or shimmied on the issue. In fact, Biden has been following the path of open opposition to well-qualified conservatives on the Supreme Court since the historic battle over Ronald Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork way back in 1987.
Senate Republicans, unfortunately, have been slow on the uptake here. Shunning a defense of conservative judicial principles, in the name of bipartisanship Senate Republicans acted precisely as their House counterparts did with Jack Kemp on the economic question back in 1978. Instead of fighting for principle, they joined Democrats in providing the liberal Ginsburg with a 96-3 vote in favor of her confirmation. When a second opening presented itself, the Clinton nomination of Breyer was also approved overwhelmingly by Republicans, with the liberal jurist receiving an 87-9 favorable vote.
Yet if these kind of collegial nods to a Democrat in the White House or Democrat colleagues in the then-Senate majority were thought of as something that would be reciprocated when a Republican was occupying 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and appointing judges, guess again.
After the Bork defeat, Democrats increasingly refused outright to ever again show the once routine support for Court nominees from Republican presidents as the GOP would later show Clinton. Urged on by far-left special interest groups such as People for the American Way, they opposed Clarence Thomas 52-48, John Roberts 78-22, and Samuel Alito 58-42, the latter, in a stunning display of partisanship, receiving only four votes from Senate Democrats. Worse still, Democrats took the fight to the lower levels of the federal judiciary, refusing even to allow a vote on the Senate floor for various nominees. Notably, they went out of their way to wreck the prospective judicial career of one Bush nominee in particular -- the superbly qualified Miguel Estrada. Note well the Hispanic name. Estrada was also an immigrant made good, like Obama himself a star at Harvard Law School. It not only made no difference to Senate Democrats, these were precisely the reasons Democrats refused to confirm him. To quote from an internal Democratic memo of the day, the notion of confirming a Latino who had conservative principles was seen as a "mistake" that must be avoided.
The best defense, as the saying goes, is a good offense. There is a serious, vivid philosophical disagreement between conservatives and liberals over judicial philosophy. This is exemplified in Obama's statement about the type of nominee he will seek to replace Souter:
I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a case book. It is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living, and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes, and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes.
Comments
Leave a Comment
Related Articles
ADVERTISEMENT
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
ADVERTISEMENT
Pingback| 5.5.09 @ 7:22AM
Burlington, Washington » Congressional stagnation in the United States links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
jim rice| 5.5.09 @ 8:42AM
Be a leader by stirring up problems before they exist. You're a cock, and your pathetic attempts to use Jack Kemp's name are... well... pathetic. You don't even know who the nominee is yet, and you're already stirring up shit. You guys voted that idiot in for the last 8 years... he had his choices for judges... and it's not about conservatism vs. liberalism. It was about social views. george bush wasn't really the problem, it was you and your "Christian" cronies who don't seem to understand that a Democracy reaches a balance that hopefully serves all the People. And now, the People are fed up with your bullshit.
Deborah D| 5.5.09 @ 8:49AM
It's about the law, not empathy. Here's Thomas Sowell: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/05/empathy_versus_law_96335.html
It's not about social views. It's about the Constitution.
Deborah D| 5.5.09 @ 8:51AM
Oops the whole link didn't appear, sorry.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/05/empathy_versus_law_96335.html
Michael L. Hauschild| 5.5.09 @ 8:55AM
Maybe one should contemplate opposing Hillary?
I am not going to bet the farm, but I suspect there is in the Hillary camp an intense desire to be named to the Supreme Court vacancy. If one takes the time to examine the dynamic between the Secretary of State and the POTUS that occurred in the primary it becomes reasonable to assume that the juxtaposition of power, despite appearances is still raging between the camps.
I do not believe that I am alone in my belief that the socialistic whirlpool sucking down the nation will eventually be “discovered” by the electorate. That day of reckoning is rapidly approaching and will be directly proportional to the tax burden assessed to the working Americans, i. e. that sixty percent that actually pay taxes. Some of this will be manifested by IRS mandates, bad and certainly not sung to “tax cut” anthem, but hidden in the devastatingly manifest form of inflation.
The most consummate politician in History is still the philanderer and his organizational skills, abandoned during the last campaign will not be ignored this time. Even Clintons have that “prime time” temporal window of electability, and for Hillary that time is 2012. Her position in an administration maligning every single power base, big business, the upper middle class voter, and the blue-collar workforce (Union or not) is not compatible with assuming further office. The timing for her defection is nigh and the non-partisan neutral safety of the bench would be a high profile position from which to ride out the storm of tax protests while writing minority opinions. The recent trend of “outing” the statements and thoughts of the Supreme Court justices would give her an insular and “safe” audience needed to “campaign” in a friendly MSM illumination. (Not to mentions the flattering wardrobe change from the pants suit.)
President Obama has a cobra by the tail and the window of opportunity is closing. All that is needed as leverage for the launch of a nomination nod is a resignation over a policy difference, an alienation affront to one of” her” constituencies, or a indignant statement chastising the POTUS for an “abandonment of principles.”
If the economy does not recover the Democratic Party will go south in 2010 and warming the court bench, later resigning to “save the party,” would be a positive résumé bullet point for 2012. The only real obstacles to this scenario is whether she has the political capital to “bully the current pulpit” for nomination, and the currency to counter the other opportunistic candidates that will surface within the legislative branch and therefore adversarial in her confirmation process.
Ellis Wyatt| 5.5.09 @ 9:00AM
Mr. Lord hit the nail on the head over the battle with judicial nominees. Judges have a very narrow task, to interpret the law and Supreme Court judges must make sure laws fit within the constitution that is the foundation of our country. Empathy should be a foreign concept to a judge, not a requirement. Obama sounds like a far fetched parody of the fringe left when he makes a statement like that.
Let's see if the nominee is selected for their legal ability or to meet some gender or racial quota that satisfies some ideologically driven special interest group. If it is the latter we can chalk up another embarrassment for America over our new unqualified President that someone else will have to clean up years down the road. If that is the case the Republicans should use every measure available to block a nomination that may lead to further decay of our society.
WilliamInWien| 5.5.09 @ 9:09AM
Obama was taped indicating that the Warren Court as not "radical" enough and did not depart from the constraints of the US Constitution. In view of his own words, what to expect of his choice for the Supreme Court vacancy? It is disappointing that readers, such as Mr. Rice, are unable to contribute to the issue at hand with a logical argument. Who are the "People" and how is one to know that the "People" are fed up?
Jeffrey Lord| 5.5.09 @ 9:49AM
Jim Rice....
"It was about social views. george bush wasn't really the problem, it was you and your "Christian" cronies who don't seem to understand that a Democracy reaches a balance that hopefully serves all the People."
You seem to fear the idea that the American people - not judges - should make social policy. If you favor abortion - by all means, vote for it. If, as liberals insist, the majority favors abortion, all well and and good - as long as everyone gets to make the choice. You, apparently, are about denying choice on this and other issues to everyone but judges. We here disagree.
tonypal| 5.5.09 @ 10:03AM
Jeffrey:
I don't understand why you would waste your time responding to a guy who engages in name calling. Those types of people aren't very bright and you should know from experience that you either ignore or humor them.
We all know the type of nominee Obama is going to give us, one who believes it is the job of judges to make law from the bench. It's not about the Constitution with Obama, it's about political expediencey and the institutionalizing of liberalism/socialism.
Len| 5.5.09 @ 10:26AM
Jim, got news for you buddy, this isn't a democracy. The states have always governed for the people, and have ceded no such powers to the federal government. The Constitution was created to better enable the states collectively to do such things as Common Defence, deal with foreign nations, and have good trade laws amongst themselves.
On a different note, this will be a good time to know who merits our support and who doesnt. Those who willingly go along with whatever legislative judge Obama nominates, we will know to abandon. It's a given that his nominee will have contempt for the rule of law and the Constitution, and will be seated, that does mean we do not adamantly oppose and make clear why we oppose such a nominee.
Bo Darville| 5.5.09 @ 10:59AM
I'll pitch in a couple of bucks to buy a teleprompter and some NLP based speechwriter for insertnamehere to use as our leader.
BAsil Plumley| 5.5.09 @ 11:08AM
@ tonypal
I understand why Mr Lord is responding and why we should always respond to even the dumbest comment from jim rice and his idiot brigade.
It has much to do with leadership. Mr. Lord is defending his work as Jack Kemp did for years. If we do not confront the idiocy from the jim rices' of the world, what does that say about our resolve and our leadership?
For 8 years the jim rices' of the world attacked a President with nothing more than hatred and allegations. The President said nothing, did nothing and effectively ceded any position to idiots like jim rice.
We all know that jim rice is dishonest and disingenuous but if we do not confront him/her/it, he/she/it will continue to pollute this forum with their inanity.
Besides, if we continue to confront these nitwits, they will change their handles to something else; like Tommy Pain. Right, Jeremiah?
If you break down jim rice's screed, it pretty much says "I hate Christians. Christians are stupid. The 'people' will destroy Christianity."
It is a silly, yet dangerous sentiment. Obviously, Mr. Lord touched a nerve or two with jim rice with his call for leadership. jim rice's response has a sense/element of fear.
Well done, Mr. Lord!!!
Jeffrey Lord| 5.5.09 @ 11:25AM
Basil...
Thanks. You are exactly correct. Jack Kemp was one of the nicest guys in the world, but he never - ever - made the mistake of letting bad arguments go unchallenged. This was, you and I both agree, a mistake of the Bush White House. I won't be doing that here....and the great thing about this format is that you get to speak up as well. Keep at it!
Jim| 5.5.09 @ 12:47PM
To be absolute fair and unbiased, regardless of how much we may disagree with President Obama's policies, we should withhold any and all criticism and opposition until the President actually nominates someone.
My $0.02
Marc Jeric| 5.5.09 @ 12:59PM
Does anyone remember that bloviating gasbag Joe Biden when he was showing his mastery in "high-tech lynching"? When he was trying to humiliate that uppity nigger Clarence Thomas? Well, it is perhaps the turn for the Republicans to destroy and humiliate the probable Obama nominee - most certainly a woman, a minority, somebody paasionate for justice for "underserved minorities", finally somebody who believes that Constitution must be "understood" to reflect the modern times. Get ready, Republicans!
Jeffrey Lord| 5.5.09 @ 1:28PM
Marc...
So younger readers don't misunderstand...the
phrase "uppity nigger" was used by Clarence Thomas himself at his confirmation hearings when he made it crystal clear that he saw the response of Biden and company as an attempt at a "high tech lynching of an uppity..." etc.
Never using the phrase myself, I wanted to make sure those who don't remember or were not around for the event don't think this is you making up the phrase. It was Justice Thomas...
Basil Plumley| 5.5.09 @ 1:40PM
@ Marc Jeric
With all respect ...... that is not the way to go. I am in favor of attacking the nominee's record and their ideas; exposing them as phonies and frauds.
Attacking the person via calumny is the "politics of personal destruction"; ably demonstrated by the Kennedys and Clintons. Let those who practice that craft wallow in that cesspool.
The Conservatives/GOP must stand their ground like the Spartans at the Battle of Thermopylae; on principle, even though outmanned.
Give them a fight. When was the last time the GOP actually fought the Left? During the 1990's?
tonypal| 5.5.09 @ 5:29PM
Jeffrey and Basil:
I agree wholeheartedly that we need to respond to our critics forcefully. It drove me crazy the last 8 years, watching Pres. Bush allow himself to be battered by his political enemies. I think his failure to respond helped to reinforce the idea that his "critics" were right.
Having said that, I don't think it is worthwhile to respond to some guy on a TAS thread who is engaging in name calling of the most childish variety. Instead, use your time to respond to people who put forth substantive opposition to your views.
Getting back to Bush, it would have been a waste of time for him to respond to the people from ANSWER, for example, because no one cares what those people think. But when democrat members of congress went on the attack, he should have hit back with even greater ferocity. That's how you handle opposition criticism. You ignore the loons and deal with those who can do real harm to your cause.
Angela Adams| 5.5.09 @ 6:52PM
I am a conservative not necessarily a republican and Kemp was and said everything that I believe in. The republican's today are mostly moderate - they cannot deny it - look at how the majority vote. Most have been in Washington too long and have slept with the democrats for too long and I want them out. No more carreer politicians - they are up there too long and most are in bed also with the lobbyists. We need new blood. I want McCain out especially - he has more democratic friends than republican and he could not even stick up for Palin, his running mate. The Palin thing was the last straw for me. The last thing - if I hear one more time that we inherited this economy from Bush I am going to scream. Granted the moderate republicans let the dems run all over them so that is our fault, but this was started by the dems with their community asset program and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Why isn't everyone playing all those video tapes that are out there of Maxine Waters and the rest of her cronies trying to belittle the regulators with they were trying to tell Congress that Fannie & Freddie were cooking the books? The regulators were called racists etc. We should be playing those tapes over and over and let the public make up their mind.
bob montgomery| 5.5.09 @ 8:43PM
Could be the last straw, the final nail in the coffin.If the Senators wuss out, the Tea Parties on July 4 could turn into something else.
Pingback| 5.6.09 @ 11:00AM
Topics about Latino | Stand and Deliver: Opposing Obama’s Court Nominee links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Astro| 5.6.09 @ 9:51PM
Just a complaint about the headline.
The phrase 'stand and deliver' is misused here -- as it often is. The phrase was uttered by highwaymen to the people they were robbing, telling them to hand over their valuables.
It's used in the Irish folk song 'Whisky In the Jar' (if I recall correctly.)
"...I first produced my pistol, then produced my rapier, saying 'Stand and deliver'..."
Astro| 5.6.09 @ 9:55PM
Ooops. Spelled it wrong. 'Whiskey in the Jar'.
Oldefarte| 5.14.09 @ 3:34PM
Well Rice, if you think the people are fed up with BULLSHIT, wait until the 2010 and 2012 elections, when the people WAKE UP and realize WHAT they have elected as their PRESIDENT. As to the SC nomination, conservatives and NORMAL Americans should forget about same since Obama has it in the bag [and it will be a flame throwing liberal anarchist for sure]. The opportunity to stop him was on 11/4/08----it's too late now. Americans are/were stupid, ignorant and bought into the MSM's brainwashing of Obama as NORMAL. Now they're waking up to the reality of the Democrats' trojun-horsing him and securing his victory. Jews now realize his anti-semetic tendencies; businesses now realize his socialistic tax and regulation policies; and consumers will soon realize his EMPATHETIC, middle class crushing, wealth-redistribution [Robin Hood Syndrome] social manipulations. But again, it's too late now---------the time to FIGHT will be at election times in 2010 and 2012. Any liberal or moderate, Democrat friendly, Republicans that are competiting against conservative Republicans, should be defeated. The time to reshape the PR is now. Bush's war policies enabled liberals and disaffected Americans to vote for change and Obama, which is a disaster of no end. Conservatives can rebuild the RP, starting with local, state and national elections, by supporting/voting for conservative candidates who are dedicated to overthrowing these ultra-liberals now controlling our country!!!!!!!!
Pingback| 8.31.09 @ 2:53PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Stand and Deliver: Opposing Obama's links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Lingerie| 9.12.09 @ 11:11PM
sexy lingerie wholesale lingerie