President Bush has renominated Judge Charles Pickering to an appellate court. The Democrats have vowed to defeat him. How will this battle turn out?
– Will he be confirmed?
– Which party will gain?
– How will other nominees be affected?
– What effect will this have on Demcratic power as a minority in in the Senate?
We debated Pickering at length some time ago. One can make a case that he’s a civil rights hero, because of his courageous work against the KKK, his choice of an integrated school for his children, his work with the University of Mississippi and, most of all, because he has strong support from the local black leadership, even though they’re Democrats, including support from local leaders of the NAACP. OTOH, one can make the case that he has a bad racial record, as the New York Times does here.
There was an interesting discussion on FNC Special Report last night. All the members of their “all-star panel” predicted that he would not be confirmed. Although the Panel expected Pickering to lose, they thought the Dems would use up their ammunition on Pickering and thus be more likely to confirm Bush’s other nominees.
There are more than enough Democrats to filibuster his nomination on the floor of the Senate. AFAIK the filibuster cannot be used in committee, so the Democrats do not have the votes to defeat him in the Judiciary Committee. If there’s a filibuster of any length, this nomination might become bigger news, thus a bigger policial risk to both parties.
The battle hurts the Republicans on the racial issue, especially after the Trent Lott fiasco. It hurts the Democrats, because they come across as uncooperative.
No, the Dems will not “use up their ammunition” - they’re in a much stronger position politically on civil rights questions after the Lott story, since the GOP has strengthened its reputation as soft on racism. That’sdue not only to Lott, but to this renomination, which gives the lie to Bush’s nice words just a few weeks ago.
Pickering won’t even get all that many GOP votes in the committee this time, as a number of anti-racism and anti-election-losing GOP Senators show some spine. The defeat will strengthen and embolden the Democrats on making more of their pro-civil-rights reputation - despite too much lip service lately, they still have the high ground with a pro-civil-rights populace.
Well, there’s a couple things to consider about the Pickering renomination, in light of the Lott debacle. Since it seems a bit counterproductive of the administration to negate whatever good will was created through choosing not to support Lott, one must wonder if the renomination of Pickering had been quietly offered to Lott as a sweetener to induce him to step down as Majority Leader for the sake of the party.
While Bush clearly would like to “win” this battle, he (or more correctly, Karl Rove) clearly wants also to be seen as withdrawing the party from the “southern strategy”. The Republican game plan, then, will be to emphasize as much as possible Pickering’s civil rights credentials, while avoiding the appearance of defending the perceived “insensitivity” of Pickering early in his career. So they will let the Democrats determine for themselves whether Pickering’s approval flies, but they will also make the Dems expend political capital to shoot him down. Republicans will show “votes of conscious” against Pickering only if absolutely necessary to save political face.
For the Republicans, this is a test of strength to which they cannot be fully committed. Not only must this be a probe of Democratic strength and a test of Republican solidarity, but they must also carefully gage the public perception of the party as pandering to racists. This is a politically hazardous nomination for the Pubbies.
The main hazard for the Dems is that they could overplay their hand in pursuing an obvious opportunity to gain an early “win” in the new Congress. The big opportunity is that they can show a stark contrast with the Republicans on matters of racial sensitivity, but the [relatively smaller] concern is that they also have to guard against a perception by the public that they are obstructing the President.
On the whole, it looks to me like the Pickering nomination will be defeated, and that this is a bigger opportunity for the Dems and a bigger political danger for the Republicans.
He won’t be confirmed. If he makes it out of committee, Schumer says he will filibuster, and Daschle (free of the implications to a presidential bid) says he will support it. That means the GOP needs 9 democrats willing to vote against a filibuster by one of their own. Voting against can only hurt them individually, while not voting for cloture shows up the GOP on race relations. (Pickering’s actual position is irrelevant here, only the widespread conviction that he is soft of racism.)
The Democrats will gain, as every perceived racist thing the GOP does, like this nomination, only hurts the GOP. (That’s because all of the racists vote for them already, so they won’t attract anyone, but good people will be turned off, so they will lose support.)
I predict that this will make the Dems less likely to oppose other nominees. They will have made the token resistance that shows they really are not the same as the GOP, which means that minor issues, like reactionary legal interpretations, will be less likely to generate response. Thus the Pickering nomination is a pretty savvy move by President Rove, to enable more meaningful nominees to get confirmed later.
What makes you think that all the GOP senators will toe the party line on Pickering in committee? I don’t know the makeup, but there’s probably only a one-vote advantage. Surely there’s one GOP senator who will feel vulnerable at home if he votes for this guy?
Care to elaborate on why it hurts the Dems to be seen as uncooperative?
But nationally, Pickering has very little support from black leadership. The National Black Caucus is one major group that’s vehemently against his nomination.
Let’s keep facts and politics separate, please. Most people who pay attention to politcs have the idea that Pickering is a racist. Any bickering on that point has nothing to do with what will happen to him: the court of public opinion has branded him and any who support him, and no further spin is likely to change that.
The OP re-introduces this question, but it’s a red herring. The real question is who will benefit and what will happen to him. Not something as boring as facts.
Well, my foolhardiness only goes so far, so I’m not going to speculate on that one. (I’m probably wrong about Lott’s resignation, too, but I can’t buy too much Machiavellian subtlety on the part of this administration, so the Pickering thing just makes more sense to me as a bone thrown to Lott and his supporters.)
Another reason might possibly be dat ol’ debbil “principle” - if Bush (Rove?) genuinely believe in a mission to promote the causes which Pickering (and Owen, don’t forget her), and the rest of these 30 repeated nominations represent.
Or maybe it’s just a “Fuck you” from a guy who campaigned on “I’m a uniter, not a divider”. Don’t put it past these guys.
Well, nog lets take you at your word and see where it goes.
Let’s just say that the public has associated Pickering with racism. Rightly or wrongly, lets just take that as a given.
What, then, would motivate the Bushista’s insistence on ramming him onto the bench? Certainly not blacks, as noted above. If they are willing to spend all this ammo, there is likely a reason.
Its most likely two-click-two mints in one!
One, they throw a sop to the people who are upset by Mr. Lott’s public emasculation. Kinda like saying, that was a fluke, back to business as usual. Republicans of conscience have been mollified by the public spanking, and Mr. Pickering’s record is far from clear.
Two, if they can do it, they can publicly bitch-slap the Dems and clearly demonstrate that they are In Control. This cannot help but have a demoralizing effect, and that may be precisely what they are after. I don’t think they care that much about Pickering one way or tother, but they are clearly trying to demonstrate something.
Yeah, Elvis. I’m not too hip on matters politic, and I admit my tendencies seem to be far more Dem than Repub, but the 1st thing I thought when I heard W renominated Pick was that it was simply a sign that W and his admin would do whatever they damn well pleased - at least for the next couple of years.
My mind linked this with the dividend tax cut proposal (which I admit I don’t fully understand, but I suspect whether or not it stimulates the economy, it will result in members of the Repub tradit constit having more $), and the apparent mobilization towards Iraq - despite the showing of any clear need or imminent threat.
These 3 things happening so quickly after another put this liberal in a pretty depressed mood. And made me wonder what more was in store.
I truly hope that the current admin has in mind some grand schemes to revitalize the economy and reshape the international community, and that their plans will come to fruition.
To my ignorant layman’s eyes, however, it seems that the short term costs are quite high. Moreover, it seems as tho there will be immediate benefits to certain parties who are already reasonably well off - and that the benefits to more needy persons are hypothetical and long-term.
I respect the Repubs for being aggressive in their actions. I wish the Dems were as focussed and aggressive. Note, I am not suggesting Dems are “uniters” and Repubs “dividers.” Merely, that the Dems lack focus and often appear ineffectual.
You may be right, but I don’t think any Judiciary Committee Republican will break ranks with a popular President, especially with the election almost two years away. Also, the case against Pickering just isn’t that strong. Even the NY Times virtually apologized for opposing him, saying his record was, “not as extreme as Mr. Lott’s.”
AFAIK no appellate court judicial nomination in history has ever been filibustered. In order to justify this unusual step, the Dems need to show that Pickering is a monster. That could be difficult. The Times editorial cited above doesn’t do that. It merely dings him for one questionable decision and two questionable comments, each of which can be more-or-less explained, over the course of a 40-year career.
OTOH he got high ratings from the liberal ABA and he has support from local black leaders. The last time around, these Mississippi black didn’t get much TV time or publicity. However, if they do manage to get on the air, they might be effective witnesses, since they actually know the guy and are familiar with his record.
In order for the dems to regain any clout, they first need to rebuild their base. The Democrats’ political base wants Bush’s agenda to be obstructed. I hope the Dems filibuster every last piece of vile legislation that Rove and his cronies and his sock-puppet Bush try to cram down our throats for the next two years. Hosing the Pickering nomination would be a good signal to the hard left, including the all-important African-American contingent, that the Dems are not just lay down and let the Pubbies do anything they want from now on.
The primary duty of the opposition party is to oppose. If the Dems fail to do that, then they really will lose their base. The grass roots supporters may gravitate to the Greens or some other alternative party and the Dems will go the way of the Whigs.
Well, I’ve heard some about why Pickering is a bad candidate. Taken as a whole, I don’t much like what I hear, but I don’t hear anything bad enough to march with torches and farm implements on Castle Bushenstein.
But why do the Forces of Darkness want him so badly? Is their pool of acceptable legal scholars so shallow? Or is Mr. Pickering so utterly excellent that the Republic simply cannot persist without him? If so, in what regard? Is he a surpassingly deep legal scholar? Do his opinions resound through the law schools with admiration? Or is it, as I fear, his reliability that is so endearing, rather than his intelligence?
Good question, elucidator. I think both sides are prisoners of their past statements. Bush praised Pickering highly the first time around. He’d be showing cowardice or inconsistency if he failed to renominate someone he said was so highly qualified.
Pickering’s critics defined him in very negative terms last time. They, too, are committed to a past position.
I think Jorge is being foolish for nominating a moderate like Pickering.Pickering is also not a spring chicken. Jorge SHOULD be nominating real conservatives under the age of 50.
(I’m probably wrong about Lott’s resignation, too, but I can’t buy too much Machiavellian subtlety on the part of this administration, so the Pickering thing just makes more sense to me as a bone thrown to Lott and his supporters.)