|
Jewish World Review May 25, 2005 / 16 Iyar,
5765
Linda Chavez
Senate compromise is a victory for conservatives nonetheless
http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Many conservatives are unhappy with the judicial confirmation
compromise reached on Monday among Senate moderates of both political
parties, but I'm not one of them. In the short run, this agreement will lead
to the confirmation of more conservative Bush nominees to the federal bench;
and in the long run, it will preserve the ability of conservatives in some
future Democrat-controlled Congress to stop the appointment of radical
judicial activists by a Democrat president. As in any compromise, neither
side got all that it wanted, but conservatives clearly came out ahead.
The agreement was forged by 14 senators, seven Republicans and
seven Democrats most but not all of whom can be characterized as
moderates. It committed the signatories, but no other senator, to invoke
cloture on three nominees Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and William
Pryor. Not only did this effectively stop the filibuster, but it puts three
well-qualified strict constructionists on appellate courts.
But it did something more: It gave lie to the canard that these
nominees were in any way extremists. The Alliance for Justice, People For
the American Way, MoveOn.org and other leftwing organizations spent a great
deal of money trying to convince Americans otherwise. The Alliance for
Justice which advocates anything but justice when it comes to its
treatment of conservative nominees called Owen an "extreme judicial
activist," accused Pryor of "lacking judicial temperament" and misleading
Congress during his Senate hearings, and charged Brown with "twisting the
law to advance her own political agenda."
And, of course, many Democrat senators embraced this rhetoric.
Sen. Edward Kennedy called Brown "a candidate on the far fringes of legal
thinking." Sen. Patrick Leahy said that Owen "is an example of a judge who
is very eager to make law from the bench," this from a man who has had no
problem embracing judicial decisions that legislated a right to
abortion-on-demand, same-sex unions, and other parts of the "progressive"
agenda.
The Senate compromise does not ensure a vote on all of President
Bush's nominees. Two pending appellate nominees, William Myers and Henry
Saad, appear to be sacrificial lambs. A number of Democrats have alluded to
allegations of a "very serious nature" in Saad's FBI background
investigation a clear effort to smear Saad, who is an Arab American,
without producing any actual evidence of wrongdoing. The real objection to
Saad may be that his home state senators, Michigan Democrats Carl Levin and
Debbie Stabenow, are simply seeking payback for Republicans successfully
blocking two Michigan judicial nominees in the waning days of Bill Clinton's
presidency.
Conservatives' biggest concern about the deal forged by just 14
senators is that it encourages the president "to consult with members of the
Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial
nomination to the Senate for consideration." But consulting isn't the same
thing as "pre-clearing" a nominee it would simply encourage the president
to seek the advice of the Senate, as stipulated in the Constitution, earlier
in the process. In theory, there's nothing particularly objectionable about
this practice, so long as it doesn't give Democrats a veto on the
president's choices. And, of course, if Democrats play fair hardly a
guarantee they would have to do the same thing once they're back in the
White House.
Compromise doesn't usually produce clear winners and losers
but this one should be scored a big loss for leftwing interest groups and
Democrat obstructionists. And that should give conservatives reason enough
to cheer.
JWR contributor Linda Chavez is President of the Center for Equal Opportunity. Her latest book is "Betrayal: How Union Bosses Shake Down Their Members and Corrupt American Politics". (Click HERE to purchase. Sales help fund JWR.)
|