Why conservatives and liberals alike worry over the prospect of easy confirmation.
BY MANUEL MIRANDA
Friday, August 19, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Activists on both sides of the great divide appeared to find common cause this week as they sought to tell their respective side that the fight over John Roberts is on. On Tuesday the Washington Post reported that it seemed Senate Democrats were giving Judge John Roberts a pass. This was a message that conservatives fear the White House is giving to GOP supporters and financial sources.
The reaction of liberal lobbyists to rumors of their irrelevancy was immediate. By Wednesday, the Post was quoting Judiciary Committee Democrats Pat Leahy of Vermont and Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts, each deploying the harshest words hurled at Mr. Roberts yet by people who matter (that excludes Sen. Barbara Boxer of California). Ralph Neas, the well-financed quarterback of borking, announced that Americans would soon hear from a unified left.
Conservative reaction was instant. The Committee for Justice's Sean Rushton, the right's communications leader on judicial fights, blasted out the second Post article in an e-mail to conservatives and reporters with the subject line "Cakewalk II," a sequel to his previous reaction to reports of liberal surrender, entitled "Cakewalk?" His first jeremiad included a list of September 1991 headlines following the Clarence Thomas hearings such as the Washington Post's "Senators' Gentle Questioning on Fourth Day of Hearings Suggests Doubts May Be Put Aside." The attack on Judge Thomas did not begin until 41 days after he was announced, and his confirmation seemed certain even through his hearings.
Mr. Rushton's intent was to warn that no one should think the fight is over. Grassroots organizer Kay Daly, who leads the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary, was less subtle. Her e-mail blast of the Post's report of a Democratic sea change had this subject line: "The Left is NOT going to back off on Roberts. READ THIS "
Why are both sides alarmed about talk of peace? There are several reasons, but here is one: money. For the left's organizations with staffs of up to 120, money means meeting their payroll. Mr. Neas alone is paid over $250,000 a year. For the right's organizations, with staffs consisting mostly of interns and volunteers, money means avoiding the clumsy mistakes the White House made in the past, when it failed to prepare for what befell Judge Thomas and Robert Bork. And funding means the ability to do what conservatives have done only in the past three years: take the fight for the courts to the people as a long term issue to get out the vote.
On June 24th, Congress Weekly illustrated the issue when it interviewed the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's chief legal officer, Stanton Anderson. For years, Republicans have been trying to get the business community to mobilize on the appellate court fight, to little avail. Although they pay millions to lobbyists, like Anderson, to offset the rulings of federal courts through legislation, the less-reliable side of the GOP base has been less than reliable on the less expensive effort to reform the federal judiciary itself.
Anderson told Congress Weekly that he was reluctant to commit the chamber to how much money it would spend toward any Supreme Court confirmation fight, but that the chamber's response would be "proportional" to the fight. "We are not going to commit to any specific levels . . . until we see it is necessary and appropriate" said Anderson.
Conservative leaders are worried that like Senate Democrats, who this week got a spanking from liberal lobbyists, the White House may be sending the message to GOP sources of funds that their money is not needed. With White House-spun news stories under banners like "Armies Ready for Court Battle but Are Unable to Find a Fight," they have reason to worry. GOP groups with White House blessing that once thought to raise millions for the Roberts fight have yet to raise one-tenth of what they expected.
In large part, conservative leaders' fear, as illustrated in my last two columns, shows a division among GOP supporters between the shortsighted and the farsighted. Republicans, like the leadership at the chamber, fall among the former. They have also been reluctant in the past to work with social conservatives, which explains why it took them several years to get class action and bankruptcy reform legislation passed, and they are just as likely to act on a call from a Democrat senator as from Majority Leader Bill Frist.
As liberals have for two decades, leading conservatives no longer see the public debate over a Supreme Court nomination as being just about winning a single confirmation. Liberal leaders have no divided thinking on this point. Yesterday, the Boston Globe began its coverage of the Democrats' squabble with this: "Leading liberal groups, looking to engage the public, say they will probably fight the [Roberts] confirmation."
Engaging the public is what money will buy. If the White House team and the GOP's financial backers do not know that the Roberts fight, however certain its conclusion may seem, is the first battle of the next two elections, they will lose an inexpensive opportunity.
If the Clarence Thomas confirmation process is a useful prologue, their hubris may also imperil the Roberts nomination one month from now. Here's another headline, this one from the Associated Press on Sept. 14, 1991: "Democrats Admit Thomas Heading Toward Senate Confirmation." By mid October 1991, it was not certain at all.
Mr. Miranda, former counsel to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, is founder and chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of grassroots organizations following judicial issues. His column appears on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.
opinionjournal.com |
