I Second That Motion...With a Vengeance
Today's New York Times features an op-ed from former Senator George Mitchell on the judges and the filibuster. He quotes Maine Senator Margaret Chase Smith's "Declaration of Conscience" speech, 55 years ago attacking Senator Joseph McCarthy's tactics:"'I don't believe the American people will uphold any political party that puts political exploitation above national interest,' the senator said. 'Surely we Republicans aren't that desperate for victory. While it might be a fleeting victory for the Republican Party, it would be a more lasting defeat for the American people. Surely it would ultimately be suicide for the Republican Party and the two-party system that has protected our American liberties from the dictatorship of a one-party system.'"
Sen. Mitchell calls her "the real-life Mrs. Smith", referencing Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (released a decade before this speech).
A bit of trivia: For six consecutive years, George Mitchell was voted ‘the most respected member” of the Senate by a bipartisan group of senior congressional aides. And he loves whimsical romantic comedies (Question: do journalistic ethics recognize any legitimate use of satire or sarcasm?).
Sen. Mitchell's reference to "the real-life Mrs. Smith" brought to mind Homer Simpson's remake of Mel Gibson's remake of the great filibuster scene. Classic. (I use "classic" in the slightly annoying-when-overused popular-modern sense, meaning "funny").
posted by PositiveMode @ 10:49 AM
2 Comments:
i take issue with the use of this quote and its implication that the current fight over the filibuster and judicial nominees is putting "political exploitation above national interest." changing the rules regarding filibusters may be a bad idea, but it's not political exploitation in the way that preying on people's fears of communism was. it's just making use of the republican's majority. it might be unwise, but it's not political exploitation. and who's to say it's not in the national interest? we are a country that generally defers to majority rule. would not aving a filibuster really have such a damaging effect on our country? personally, i believe the senate's role in confirming nominees should be limited to a determination of whether the judge makes reasoned decisions and whether he has any serious character flaws that call into question his ability to fulfill his role of impartial arbiter.
I think you're right, Mr. Skuggs, that this is not about political exploitation in (maybe at all) the same way that preying on fears of communism was. That's what's great about the blogosphere, is the rapidity at which ideas can be challenged - although no one will see your apt critique unless they navigate to the comments sections. So perhaps the hyperbolic semiapplicable quote of Senator Mitchell will, for practical purposes, stand unopposed. We shall see.
As to the second part of your criticism - the impartiality and character of judges as the sole determining factors - I have to say I don't really agree. While this is a nice ideal, I think the fact is that independent, intelligent judges can differ greatly in result, while standing on sound legal justification, and that's what the "majority" of Americans care about - results, and primarily the results on a pretty narrow range of issues. The Republicans obviously cared enough about these results to prevent full-Senate open and democracy-representing votes on dozens of Clinton nominees who had been evaluated as "well-qualified" by the ABA (seemingly confirming their competence and character).
I don't make that final point as a matter of purely scorekeeping, or as justified by political revenge, or whatever you want to call it, but it does underscore the fact that political views are not totally divorced from the judicial process.
I think that it's not ridiculous for lifetime appointees to our third, independent political branch to require 60 votes in the Senate; I also think that it wouldn't be a horrible thing for an "up-or-down" vote to be called on every nominee, with an extended period of required debate on controversial ones. But given that the Democrats have not used their opposition power for more than 90% of Bush nominees, on par with the hisorical rates of confirmation, I don't think that any change to the rules now would be wise. Any such change would have a much greater appearance of fairness, and thereby be more healthy for our democracy, if delayed until the next presidential administration when the controversy over these few judges has subsided.
Post a Comment
<< Home