While I agree with Quin
that the Republican campaign against Sonia Sotomayor left a lot
to be desired, it is nevertheless part of a pattern of slow but
real progress toward taking judicial nominations — especially
nominations to the Supreme Court — as seriously as the other
side does. Republican presidents have historically nominated a
combination of moderates (sometimes outright liberals) and
conservatives while Democratic ones increasingly moved toward
liberal litmus tests; Republican senators continued to vote
overwhelmingly for liberals nominated by Democratic presidents
long after Democratic senators stopped supporting qualified
conservative nominees.
The result of that imbalance was predictable: a court that could
at best nibble away at a half century of liberal jurisprudence
despite an ostensible conservative majority. The traditional
conservative understanding of the Constitution continued to
erode, not only (but not least) because of an indifference to who
was being nominated. Qualifications matter, elections have
consequences, but the raw truth is that ideology and judicial
philosophy can no longer be ignored.
The first real signs that things were starting to change came
under George W. Bush. Outspoken public opposition by
conservatives and Republican senators to Harriet Miers — as well
as the largely behind-the-scenes campaign against a potential
Alberto Gonzales nomination — showed that the right was no
longer going to accept stealth nominees, especially when there is
a clear, established bench of qualified legal conservatives
available. The fact that Republicans look like they are going to
vote against Sotomayor 31 to 9 — including Republicans like
Chuck Grassley and Orrin Hatch who have never voted against a
Supreme Court nominee in their long careers — is more progress,
even if there is still a long way to go.
Tim| 8.6.09 @ 1:58PM
I doubt anybody was more surprised than Bush when he tried foist Harriet on us.
Solo| 8.6.09 @ 2:39PM
Right you are, Mr. Antle! And, well said.
What we learned from the Harriet Myers (near) debacle is that we can effect change in the appropriate direction if we put our voices together. Providing, of course, that we have a representative that seeks to keep our favor.
Such is not the case when a democrat is making the call -which is why it was shear folly to "sit on your hands" rather than vote for McCain in the last cycle. Even a RINO will be more responsive to our voice than a determined enemy in Obama and the democrats.
Now that our Republic is gasping its last breaths in the democrat's 'full court press' towards permanent socialism, we're finally figuring out that elections matter- the 'lesser of two evils' is better than the 'greater of two evils'...and that it pays to get involved and demand to be heard.
Let's hope that it isn't too late.
Roy| 8.6.09 @ 9:05PM
Opposition to Miers was a big deal, but it should not be forgotten that one big, big thing was that Bush himself WANTED to appoint conservatives. He campaigned on more Scalias and Thomases and nominated Roberts and Alito when the media was directing him to appoint a left-legged transgendered Nepalese/Australian aborigine.
Even with Miers, the problem wasn't ideology as much as qualification. Although, it's possible that she would have been another Souter.
My point is: an article on the theme of "Republicans finally fighting back" should include Bush.