LoyaltyisaCurse

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
Thu Jun 23, 8:17 AM ET



There's no vacancy on the Supreme Court - not yet, at least.


That hasn't stopped a conservative group from running a campaign-style TV ad - an unusually early shot in what could be a bitter, expensive political battle if any of the nine justices retire next week at the end of the Supreme Court's annual term.


Progress for America, which says it's ready to spend $18 million to support any nominee President Bush chooses, on Wednesday began airing a TV and radio ad that warns that Democrats will "attack anyone the president nominates."


"We've had ads before about nominations, but the idea of an ad even before a vacancy is announced - this is unprecedented," says Richard Davis, political science professor at Brigham Young University and author of Electing Justice, Fixing the Supreme Court Nomination Process.


The ad's release symbolizes the political tension over a potential vacancy on the Supreme Court, which hasn't had an opening in 11 years. Chief Justice William Rehnquist, 80, is being treated for thyroid cancer. The question of whether he will step down has gripped Washington for months.


The retirement of a conservative such as Rehnquist likely would not change the nature of the court significantly because Bush probably would nominate another conservative to replace him. Still, groups on both sides of the political aisle are "chomping at the bit for this fight to take place," Davis says. They see such a battle as a warm-up for any other vacancy - one that could give Bush the chance to establish a more solid conservative majority on the divided court.


The ad, says Progress for America President Brian McCabe, is his group's attempt to frame any debate before Democrats can.


When President Reagan nominated federal Judge Robert Bork to the court in 1987, "Sen. (Edward) Kennedy went to the Senate floor eight minutes later, and a lot of what he said (about Bork) stuck" and contributed to Bork's being rejected by the Senate, McCabe says. "It's important to get out ahead on this."


McCabe says his group will spend $400,000 to air the ad for a week: nationally on CNN and Fox News Channel; during Sunday morning talk shows on ABC, CBS and NBC; and on radio and TV stations in Washington. The group will spend $80,000 on Internet ads.


Ralph Neas of the liberal group People for the American Way says the ad "is part of what I call the radical right's DIM strategy. It diverts attention from real issues, intimidates anyone who questions what the president does and misleads the people."


Neas says his group might respond with an ad that would focus on "what we're concerned about: protecting rights and underscoring that there should be bipartisan consultation" by the White House.

__________________
Goin' "Double Maverick!"

40yearfan

Just like the Boy Scouts-----Be Prepared.

__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain

LoyaltyisaCurse

The court needs to have conservative, liberal,and moderate voices to truly be effective. Any side that wants it leaning hard to one side or the other is making a grave mistake.

The one wild card is, once a Justice has a lifetime appoinment there is nothing tha can hold him/her to an expected point of view i.e. Earl Warren.

__________________
Goin' "Double Maverick!"

NickelBack

Progress for America:

http://www.progressforamerica.com/

Very, ah, enlightenling look to their home page.

KloD

Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 12:35:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: New Article: A Premature Attack

A Premature Attack
Pro-Bush group's ad faults Democrats for criticisms they haven't yet made, about a Supreme Court nominee who hasn't been named, to a vacancy that doesn't yet exist.
June 23, 2005

(This is the full text of our latest article (http://www.factcheck.org/article333.html).
To view video of the TV ad to which it refers, see the full article on our website and click "video")


Summary

A pro-Bush group fired the opening salvo - they call it "a warning shot" - in what threatens to become a multi-million dollar advertising and public relations campaign over a possible Bush appointment to the Supreme Court.
The ad predicts "Democrats will attack anyone the President nominates,"
saying that " a Supreme Court nominee deserves real consideration, instead of instant attacks."

But this ad itself is an attack that goes beyond "instant" - it was launched without waiting for Bush to name a replacement for the ailing Justice William Rehnquist, or even for Rehnquist to say publicly whether or not he will retire as he is reported to be considering. And whether or not Democrats will criticize "anyone" Bush names can't be known for sure at this point - it may or may not turn out to be true.

To support its case, the ad cites editorial blurbs from Republican newspapers criticizing Democrats over their treatment of Supreme Court nominees in the past. But the ad fails to note that the blurbs were about the Robert Bork nomination fight that happened nearly 18 years ago.

Analysis

The Republican group Progress for America released the television ad "Get Ready" on June 22. In a news release, the group reports that the ad will run through July 1 as part of a $700,000 effort to "warn opinion leaders in Washington, DC and beyond that some Democrats will soon unleash a fury of dishonest and ugly attacks about any Justice that President Bush nominates to the Supreme Court should a vacancy occur."

The group will air the television ad nationally on CNN and the Fox News Channel. In the Washington, D.C. area, the group plans to air the spot on MSNBC, CNBC, a number of Sunday morning political talk shows like NBC's "Meet the Press," and a local news channel. The group will sponsor banner ads linking to its www.UporDownVote.org site on the websites of several newspapers, including The New York Times and Washington Post, and blogs, including the Drudge Report and Instapundit.

What They Said

The ad begins by recounting some controversial statements from a pair of prominent Democrats. The quotes are accurate and only slightly out of context.

Howard Dean is pictured as the narrator says, "Republicans 'never made an honest living in their lives.'"

Dean's actual comments referred to "a lot of" Republicans and not, as the ad implies, all Republicans. Dean was speaking to the Campaign for America 's Future about election reform, arguing that long waits at the polls might discourage voters who can't take much time away from their jobs:

Howard Dean, June 2:The idea that you have to wait on line for eight hours to cast your ballot in Florida , there's something the matter with that.
You think people can work all day and then pick up their kids at child care or whatever and get home and still manage to sandwich in an eight-hour vote? Well, Republicans, I guess, can do that because a lot of them never made an honest living in their lives. But for ordinary working people who have to work eight hours a day, they have kids, they've got to get home to those kids--the idea of making them stand for eight hours to cast their ballot for democracy is wrong . . .

That remark was too much even for some fellow Democrats. Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware said June 5 on ABC's "This Week" that Dean "doesn't speak for me with that kind of rhetoric, and I don't think he speaks for the majority of Democrats." And the party's 2004 vice presidential candidate, John Edwards, called Dean "a voice" that "I don't agree with."

The ad also shows a picture of Senate Minority leader Harry Reid while the announcer quotes him as calling President Bush both a "loser" and a "liar."

Reid originally called Bush a "liar" in 2002 after a speech that Bush gave about storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, saying, "
President Bush is a liar. He betrayed Nevada and the betrayed the country."

Reid questioned Bush's truthfulness again in late April of 2005 in the midst of the battle over judicial filibusters in the Senate. In a press release, Reid said:

Harry Reid, April 5: Last week, I met with the president and was encouraged when he told me he would not become involved in Republican efforts to break the Senate rules. Now, it appears he was not being honest, and that the White House is encouraging this raw abuse of power.

Reid made another personal attack on Bush at Del Sol High School in Nevada on May 6, according to the Las Vegas Review-Journal:

Reid, May 6: The man's father is a wonderful human being. I think this guy is a loser.

Later, in an interview with Rolling Stone from June 2, Reid confirmed that he had called Bush both a "liar" and a "loser":

Q: You've called Bush a loser. Reid: And a liar. Q: You've apologized for the loser comment. Reid: But never for the liar, have I.

The ad invites viewers to conclude that "the liberals" will make similar comments about a future Bush nominee to the Supreme Court. That, however, may or may not turn out to be the case.

Old Criticisms

The ad then turns to Democratic attacks on nominees of "past Presidents,"
while briefly showing images of Ronald Reagan and of Bush's father: "Some Democrats instantly attacked. Newspapers called some of these liberal attacks a 'smear,' 'dishonest,' 'ugly.'" The articles that the ad cites are editorials that ran in September and October of 1987 about then-President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.

It is true that the newspaper opinion pieces cited were extremely critical of liberal interest groups who were accusing Bork of being an extremist and a judicial radical. The Chicago Tribune lamented that "the campaign to smear him has become, quite simply, a disgrace." The Wall Street Journal's conservative editorial page similarly bemoaned that "none of Judge Bork's friends, including us, could believe that this dishonest, despicably anti-intellectual campaign could succeed against the nation's outstanding jurist." The Chicago Tribune said the Bork fight "has sunk to an ugly level."

Worth noting, however, is that the Tribune - a newspaper that habitually endorses Republican presidential candidates - also stated that the Bork fight wasn't the first such "ugly" nomination battle. It observed that Democratic President Jimmy Carter's nominee to the D.C. Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Abner Mikva, "had a hard time with conservatives."

It has been almost 18 years since the uncommonly contentious and bruising fight over Bork's nomination. He was rejected by the Senate, then controlled by Democrats, by a vote of 58 to 42. Since Bork's ill- fated nomination, five other justices have been nominated and confirmed - Anthony Kennedy in 1988, David Souter in 1990, Clarence Thomas in 1991, Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993, and Stephen Breyer in 1994 - under both Republican Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush and Democratic President Bill Clinton.

The ad predicts that "Democrats will attack anyone the president nominates." Perhaps so. But that is, of course, an opinion. Democrats have criticized Supreme Court nominees in the past, but it remains to be seen whether - when there is actually a vacancy to fill - President Bush will nominate someone who Democrats might at least tolerate.

-by Matthew Barge

Sources

Howard Dean, Remarks to the Campaign for America's Future, FDCH Political Transcripts, 2 June 2005.

Greg Pierce, "Inside Politics , Washington Times, 6 June 2005.

Erin Neff, "Political rift could hurt state's Yucca fight ," Las Vegas Sun , 5 March 2002.

"Meet the Press," trans cript , 05 December 2004.

Harry Reid, "Bush Goes Back on Word and Encourages Irresponsible Abuse of Power," press release , 22 April 2005.

Erin Neff, "Del Sol High School Appearance: Reid Calls Bush 'A Loser,'"
Las Vegas Review-Journal, 7 May 2005.

Eric Bates, "The Gunslinger ," Rolling Stone, 2 June 2005.

"The Disfigured Debate Over Bork," editorial, Chicago Tribune, 6 September 1987.

"Nuts," editorial, Wall Street Journal, 8 October 1987.

RedStorm

I think what the court needs are people who will interpret the law as intended. That way, if a law is bad, we can change it through legislation. Like the way it is supposed to happen.

__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark

40yearfan

Can anyone really disagree with this statement? If Rehnquist (a conservative) retires, will the Demos holler if Bush nominates a conservative to replace him?

You bet your booty they will. Oh they will preface it by saying if we let him put a conservative in now, when the next justice retires, it will probably be a liberal and he will try to appoint a conservative to that post also.

This argument doesn't fly. For one thing, no one knows if another justice will retire during Bush's term. For another, how do we know it would be a liberal judge if one does retire? Also, why not let the conservative in and then raise a ruckus if any of the liberal judges decide to retire?

All of this hollering about keeping the Supreme Court's balance doesn't mean a thing. What the Demos really want is to be able to replace conservatives with liberals. If they don't have the votes in Congress, they can then depend on the courts to carry out their agenda.

__________________
“So I became a newspaperman. I hated to do it but I couldn’t find honest employment.” —Mark Twain

RedStorm

This can happen both ways and is why we need judges to interpret the law as intended and not make law. We have a congress to make laws and allowing judges to have this power usurps the power that belongs to the people.

__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark

NickelBack

Since the Senate agreed to 'compromise' on the filabuster issue four of President Bush's five judical nominees have been approved.

RedStorm

Most think this is just a calm before the SC nommiee.

__________________
The greatest lies are told before a marriage, after a hunt and during an election - Count Bismark

SirStefan32

It's gonna be interesting to see what happens if Sandra or John Paul retire and Honorable Justice Rehnquist stays on the court.

__________________
"Don't try to threaten me Mulder! I've watched presidents die."

"If people would know the things I know, we'd all fall apart."

"Once again, tonight, the course of human history will be set by two unknown men standing in the shadows."

Cigarette Smoking Man

LoyaltyisaCurse

The Dems were outsmarted once again with that compromise. One reason they are going to hold firm on Bolton.

I also think it is safe to say that if a Liberal were to retire Consevative would do anything in their power to get another Conservative in the court.

Liberals should be thanking their lucky stars that it is a conservative that is most likely leaving the bench.

This little pre-emptive commercial is pretty rediculous in my book.

__________________
Goin' "Double Maverick!"