Jewish World Review March 21, 2005 / 10 Adar II, 5765

Peter A. Brown

JWR's Pundits
World Editorial
Cartoon Showcase

Mallard Fillmore

Michael Barone
Mona Charen
Linda Chavez
Ann Coulter
Greg Crosby
Larry Elder
Don Feder
Suzanne Fields
James Glassman
Paul Greenberg
Bob Greene
Betsy Hart
Nat Hentoff
David Horowitz
Marianne Jennings
Michael Kelly
Mort Kondracke
Ch. Krauthammer
Lawrence Kudlow
Dr. Laura
John Leo
Michelle Malkin
Jackie Mason
Chris Matthews
Michael Medved
MUGGER
Kathleen Parker
Wes Pruden
Sam Schulman
Amity Shlaes
Roger Simon
Tony Snow
Thomas Sowell
Cal Thomas
Jonathan S. Tobin
Ben Wattenberg
George Will
Bruce Williams
Walter Williams
Mort Zuckerman

Consumer Reports

Here's how Bush may win by losing


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Politics is a funny game. A win can turn out to be a loss, or sometimes you can lose by winning.

The betting here is a California judge's decision to legalize gay marriage there will eventually fall into that category.

In the long run, those unhappy with the ruling may come to view it as a catalyst that advanced their overall agenda — and not just when it comes to same-sex marriage.

Gay-rights proponents may well wonder, as they did after last November's election, whether court victories are worth the political cost.

That's because the decision likely will help President Bush win the upcoming war over judicial confirmations about to engulf Washington, D.C. Such a victory could tilt the national verdict on many issues.

The nation's political polarization has created consolidated agendas among Republicans/conservatives and Democrats/liberals that cut across single-issue constituencies.

First of all, the California Supreme Court may overturn this decision. If not, a state constitutional amendment taking the matter out of court hands by banning gay marriage would seem quite possible.

After all, voters in 11 states last fall banned gay unions. California is unlikely to be any different if the question is on the ballot.

However, the decision could help the anti-gay marriage crowd on the other side of the country. In politics, everything is interrelated, and the impact of this lawmaking by judicial fiat will be felt in Washington, D.C.

For the most part, Republicans who oppose gay marriage also don't like abortion, tax increases, business regulation, too much government spending, the United Nations and efforts to restrain U.S. power.

The left's mantra is almost exactly opposite, so that the notion of two teams fighting each other on a variety of matters is a largely accurate metaphor.

It doesn't matter that it was a California state judge appointed by a Republican who ruled on gay marriage. It could not have come at a better time for the GOP team arguing that confirming federal judicial appointments is worth spending serious political capital.

That is obviously true for both parties, but the GOP has the edge because it controls the Senate, where the war over the judiciary is about to be fought.

Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist has cancer. Bush will almost certainly have at least one high court appointment this year, perhaps more.

At the same time, he has resubmitted seven appointments to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for Senate confirmation. Democrats stopped them from getting up-or-down votes through use of the filibuster last year.

Historically, both parties have used their majority power to reject court appointments in the Senate. But never before has a minority prevented confirmation by refusing to stop talking. Under current Senate rules, 60 of the 100 senators are needed to cut off debate, and the Democrats have 45. That has been enough to sustain a filibuster, but not to win up-or-down votes.

The Republicans are threatening to change Senate rules to make it impossible to filibuster judicial nominees, a possibility dubbed "the nuclear option" because Democrats have said in response they will use procedural rules to stop the Senate from conducting business.

Donate to JWR


The threats to go nuclear over the current seven nominees are a dress rehearsal for the real show: the Supreme Court. So far, this battle over the appeals-court appointments has been like the National Basketball Association regular season. The basketball public only becomes engaged once the playoffs began, and that will be the case in spades when the high-court nomination is made.

Democrats are daring the president and the Republican Senate to eliminate the filibuster and take them on in an exceptionally high-stakes public fight that could have enormous consequences at the ballot box.

Democrats will argue, as they did during last year's campaign when they warned re-electing Bush would create judicial Armageddon, that they should use any means possible to stop Bush's nominees.

Bush will say he wants only judges who will follow the law and let the people decide political questions. He'll dare the Democrats to act like sore losers and question, as he did successfully last fall, whether they have any ideas of their own or are just reflexively against anything the GOP favors.

In campaigning for a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, which also might get some help from the California decision, Bush has decried activist judges who legislate from the bench.

That's why the ruling in California can't do anything but help confirm the kind of nominees who could help his team's agenda for years to come.



Peter A. Brown is an editorial page columnist for the Orlando Sentinel. Comment by clicking here.

Up


03/16/05: News media should lose this case
03/11/05: It's Canadian airspace, but our lives
03/02/05: Cut to heart of transplant shortage
02/23/05: Europe is more a competitor than ally
02/16/05: Don't count race, gender for benefits
02/14/05: Do you trust adults or children?
02/08/05: Chairman's race can't turn party around
01/20/04: The law has caught up with public opinion on gay-rights matters
01/04/05: To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it depends on your definition of charity
12/21/04: Fierceness of Supreme battle is logical result of continuing pattern of those who lose at the ballot box looking to the courts to reverse the will of the people
12/14/04: Minority party still ducks basic problem
12/07/04: U.S., Canada: Joined at hip if not heart
11/24/04: Why does U.N. get free ride in scandal?
11/15/04: Gonzales lives America's promise
11/09/04: A Bipartisanship does not mean 50-50
10/26/04: Al-Qaeda adopts Viet Cong's Tet strategy: Don't' fall for it
10/19/04: Even in '91, Saddam cowed Kerry
10/13/04: Patriot Act, preemptive force here to stay
09/15/04: Kerry bets on Iraq change over consistency
09/07/04: Miller's treatment shows media bias
08/31/04: Europeans discovering value of work
08/17/04: A home where wolves don't roam?
08/10/04: Public interest vs. minority rights
08/10/04: Kerry deserves an A in history, and in his willingness to mimic the mantra of those he has spent an entire political career vilifying
08/03/04: Kerry's challenge: Closing the deal
07/29/04: Note to Prez: Customer's always right
07/20/04: If Kerry doesn't tell, voters should ask
07/14/04: PSST, pass it on, Kerry & Crew no longer think Iraq war was a mistake. Really!
06/29/04: Hostile media, prickly president — a troubling mix
06/22/04: With Kerry's choices, you'd want McCain, too
06/04/04: A debt unpaid to D-Day warriors
05/25/04: America has a bad attitude!
05/20/04: Surprise! A thank you to Bill Clinton
05/06/04: Corrupt U.N.? Shine a light
04/28/04: Kerry not weak on defense — just wrong
04/22/04: No attacks in U.S. since 9-11: Why?
04/16/04: Schools should focus on boys — now
03/16/04: Scalia recusing could give Kerry a bruising
03/04/04: Abortion, gay marriage show hypocrisy
03/01/04: Politicians can't repeal economic laws
02/19/04: The question prez, Kerry won't debate
01/21/04: Dems trying oh so hard to keep tired issue alive
01/21/04: Can whiners ever see positive side?
12/23/04: UN proves yet again it's dangerously misguided
11/18/03: U.N. oversight of Internet: Dumb idea
11/11/03: Absent change, GOP trend continues
10/28/03: Soft-on-defense stereotype — no wonder
10/22/03: Bet on Bush and the economy
09/23/03: France's time to decide: Friend or foe
09/16/03: Alabama no fluke in rejecting tax hike
09/03/03: Why Bush, Dean will win big in California recall
08/12/03: Hypocrisy from anti-death-penalty crowd
08/05/03: The rule of law or the Golden Rule?
07/22/03: A cautionary tale for those who naively believe that political posturing can override the laws of economics
06/24/03: Let seniors make their own choices
06/03/03: Bush bucks NRA to woo soccer moms
05/28/03: Bail out states? It's not D.C.'s job
05/20/03: Lawyers' party hits a new low
05/13/03: Bush mimics Nixon, Reagan by going against the political grain


© 2003, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services