Russert's flawed Breyer/ Ginsburg analogy

[DefenseLawyer]

Russert keeps trotting what he apparently thinks is a "gotcha" story about Republican support for Breyer and Ginsburg to the SCOTUS. The basics being: they were ultra liberal (ACLU... Ted Kennedy... etc. etc.) they made their ultra liberal views known and Republicans still "did the right thing" and gave them a fair and square vote. This is simply not true. Breyer and Ginsburg, especially Breyer, were moderate nominees (and have proven to be moderates in their SC decisions, labels notwithstanding). They were consensus nominees that Clinton chose with the PRIOR approval of Orrin Hatch. Clinton certainly didn't put up the most liberal nominees he could find and force a fight with the Senate. He went to Hatch and said "Who can I nominate that you could swallow?" For the life of me I don't know why Dems aren't ready to answer the basic fallacy of Russert's premise. It doesn't seem complicated to me.

[chelsea0011]

1. This is all very true. And I agree, they are moderate to left judges.

It is funny how extreme right wing candidates somehow get put into Ginsberg and Breyer categories. There was no litmus test for Roe v. Wade back then. The right has made it now a forget any consideration if Roe v. Wade isn't on the table to be overturned. Good luck trying to put a far left candidate up for nomination.

[Pirate Smile]

2. The fact that they were who Hatch recommended to Clinton as acceptable

nominees should be the big talking point.

This is how Bush consulted with the Democrats:

Bush Consultation on Alito: "Zero, Nothing"

When President Bush nominated John Roberts, the White House repeatedly highlighted the level of Bush's consultation with the Senate:

I think you heard from some long-time serving members of the Senate who said that this level of consultation was unprecedented.

The same occured during the lead up to the Miers pick:

We have consulted with over 70 United States senators. That matches the level of consultation that we held for the first vacancy. The level of consultation that we engaged in was unprecedented; we have now matched that.

With Alito's nomination, however, the White House disregarded the process:

(Senate Majority Leader Harry) Reid's tongue was firmly in cheek when describing consultation with the White House about the Alito nomination.

"I really am impressed with the consultation of this nomination. Let me tell you what it consisted of. I was at the Rosa Parks event last night, which was a solemn occasion and very nice. (White House Chief of Staff) Andy Card walked up to me and said I am going to call you at 6:30 in the morning. I said, 'That is too bad,' because I knew by then they had already picked someone... He didn't call me at 6:30 (but at) about quarter to 7. The conversation lasted maybe 10 seconds. He said, 'You have already heard?' I said, yup, and that was it. That is the consultation. With (Judge John) Roberts we had consultation, with (White House Counsel Harriet) Miers we had consultation, with Alito zero, nothing."

It's not that President Bush didn't have the time - he spent last weekend "contact(ing) prominent conservatives to test the reaction to various candidates."

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/11/01/alito-consultation/

[kskiska]

3. Also, the air was a little less poisonous back then.

Some traditions still held. Once impeachment fever got into full swing, things would never be the same again.

[DefenseLawyer]

4. I don't see that tradition had anything to do with it.

Clinton cut a deal, for better or worse. Clinton wanted to nominate Bruce Babbitt. Hatch said it would be bloody and gave him Breyer and Ginsburg as alternatives that he could accept. If Clinton had not allowed Hatch to pick his nominees, I doubt that tradition would have kept the republicans from killing the nomination.

[kentuck]

5. If they had been the "swing" vote on the Court...?

Do you think the Repubs would have voted for either of them?

That is what is different now.

[DefenseLawyer]

6. Yes, I think they would have

They were moderates. They were the best the Republicans were going to get from Clinton. If Clinton had nominated say, Lawrence Tribe or his choice Bruce Babbitt, you would have seen a battle. Just look at all of the Clinton lower court appointments that never got a vote from Hatch. That was my original point, these were not the liberal equivalent to Alito that the right just accepted out of "comity", they were both compromise nominees who were seen as relatively moderate by both sides (among politicians anyway, if not among activists).