Confirmation Wars: Bits and Pieces
Here are some bits and pieces from hither and yon (but especially with the help of the amazing Howard Bashman):
- — Jack Newfield has a piece in the nation, titled The Judiciary Wars. Here is a bite-sized chunk:
-
A recognition has dawned on almost all the Senate Democrats that Bush is trying to remake America through his lifetime appointments to the federal bench. He is attempting to pack the courts with zealots and activists who are not impartial and who will legislate from the bench. The Senate Democrats have finally realized that this is an assault on their electoral base–women, minorities, workers, consumers–and even conservatives like Fritz Hollings and Mary Landrieu are holding fast on the filibuster. Democratic minority leader Tom Daschle has made the rejection of extremist judges a test of his leadership. Before the filibuster began against Estrada, Daschle told his conference, “We are in this through the tenth cloture vote and the twentieth cloture vote,” signaling he would resign as leader if there were defections in the midst of battle.
Notice the rhetorical shift to legal formalism. Newfield’s column assumes that we want formalist judges–who will apply the law and not make it–but this is the usual line taken by conservatives. Interesting.
–Matthew Thomas writes in response to my recent posts on the two dimensions of judicial attitudes (political ideology and judicial philosophy). Thomas suggests that purely formalist judges would converge. I’ve blogged his full email and a response here on Legal Theory Annex.
—David Bernstein comments on the Judicial Watch lawsuit against the Democratic filibuster, joining the chorus of voices opining that the suit will fail for want of justiciability.