October 28, 2011
AS ICONIC 60-Minute Man Chuck Bednarik would say, the guy who knows what's on the other side of the field has a distinct advantage over the guy who stays in his own zone. It helps you to neutralize or - as in the case of Frank Gifford - horizontal-ize the enemy. It's the same with politics; putting yourself in the opposition's shoes is a masterful strategy, one that the great Vince Lombardi would have cheered. And I have to say that last week the game ball went to the liberals, who displayed an amazing ability to call out and criticize the most radical, dangerous members of their squad.
July 17, 2009 |
ONE person's Great American Success Story is another's irrelevant footnote. All depends on who's telling the tale. Example: Child of Latino immigrants overcomes adversity, works hard, makes it to the Ivy League, then the law review and rises to the highest echelons of the legal profession. Child-turned-accomplished adult gets tapped for a prestigious federal judgeship. And Democrats wage a bitter battle against the nomination, up to and including the rarely used filibuster.
July 16, 2009
MAYBE NOT EVERY "wise Latina woman" would make her opponents look out of touch and not all that bright, but Judge Sonia Sotomayor surely has. In the process, Sotomayor has demonstrated - better, frankly, than she expressed it verbally in the past - just why the U.S. Supreme Court needs more justices who are not white males. We are referring, of course, to Republican senators' fixation on Sotomayor's comment that "a wise Latina woman . . . would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male . . . " In the context of a speech in which she made the comment, her meaning was clear: Some of the white males who have dominated the judiciary for centuries have been capable of seeing the perspectives of minorities, but it takes time and effort that some simply can't muster.
May 8, 2005
Let the Senate vote Re: "The Filibuster Rule/Don't drop the bomb," editorial, April 24: Republicans in the U.S. Senate have never denied a vote by filibuster to any judicial nominee. Up until 2001, no judicial nominee, Democrat or Republican, who had the necessary votes for confirmation was ever denied a vote by the full Senate. Filibustering to permit more time for debate is one thing, as has been done for many years. (President Lyndon Johnson's nominee for chief justice of the Supreme Court, Abe Fortas, was the subject of such a filibuster, led by then-Sen.
February 25, 2005 |
President Bush would be wise to "pick up the phone" and consult with Democrats before choosing a new Supreme Court justice. "The advice clause in the Constitution has been largely ignored. " If there is a vacancy on the high court, "the far right is going to come hard at a nominee if it is not a nominee of their choosing. But I think there's a much broader base in America than the far right. " Changing the Senate rules to prohibit filibusters of judicial nominees - the "nuclear option" - could have deleterious short-term effects and run the long-term risk of eroding the rights of the minority.
January 26, 2004 |
I am bereft. I yield to no one - not a single orange-cap-wearing, twentysomething vegan Deaniac - in my disappointment over Howard Dean's Iowa debacle. Sure, he was their hope. But he was mine, too. Dean as Democratic nominee promised not just happiness, but glory: a Republican landslide of biblical proportions. Big majority in the House. And so many coattailled new senators that Bush could have begun repopulating the Supreme Court with 42-year-old conservatives (like Miguel Estrada)
November 22, 2003 |
LAST WEEK, Senate Democrats blocked three women who were nominated to the federal bench by President Bush. This came immediately after the conclusion of 40 hours of debate in which the Republicans complained about the rejection of the president's judicial candidates. Ted Kennedy said his party would "continue to resist any Neanderthal that is nominated by this president," an interesting word choice from a guy who let a woman drown, and a statement that lets you know just how out of control the judicial nomination process has become.
November 14, 2003 |
As the Senate extended its marathon debate on stalled judicial nominations, President Bush gathered three controversial nominees in the Oval Office and vowed to stick with them "to the bitter end. " "These three women are being denied a chance to serve on the bench because of ugly politics in the United States Senate," Bush said yesterday, flanked by federal Appeals Court nominees Janice Rogers Brown and Carolyn Kuhl of California and Priscilla Owen...
November 12, 2003 |
Get your tickets to the U.S. Senate! A 30-hour marathon debate starts today and will go straight through to Friday. Republicans have orchestrated the "talkathon" to highlight Democratic efforts to block the confirmation of some of President Bush's judicial nominees. No one expects to resolve the fight, but that won't stop lawmakers from keeping bleary-eyed Senate staff, stenographers, librarians, pages, cooks and police officers on a round-the-clock vigil. Senators on both sides of the aisle intend to add another chapter to the chamber's history.
October 31, 2003 |
LAST WEEK, I spent an evening glued to the TV, watching the Senate confirmation hearings of Justice Janice Rogers Brown. Brown is a judge on the California Supreme Court, nominated by President Bush to fill a vacancy on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Like a number of the nominees proposed by the administration, she is highly qualified, a minority and conservative. In many ways, she is the female version of Miguel Estrada, who withdrew his nomination in the wake of a partisan filibuster led by that champion of diversity, Charles Schumer.