CBS Distorts Ken Starr Comments About Filibusters of Judicial Nominees
Oh, That Liberal Media
CBS has seriously distorted comments made by Ken Starr about filibusters.
(Via Power Line.)
Monday night, Starr appeared in a CBS News segment regarding the current controversy over filibusters and the nuclear option.
You can watch the video here.
cbsnews.com
The CBS News report quoted Starr as saying: "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." Viewed in context, Starr appeared to be referring to the Republicans' proposal to employ the "nuclear option" and do away with the filibuster.
But it turns out that Starr was actually criticizing Senators who vote against a qualified judicial nominee for reasons relating to the nominee's judicial philosophy -- in other words, what Democrats are currently doing to President Bush's nominees.
CBS took a quote criticizing the current practice of Democrats, and transmogrified it into a criticism of a proposed plan of action by Republicans.
Starr has circulated an e-mail in which he says his quotes were distorted. Ramesh Ponnuru quotes Starr's e-mail as saying:
<<<
In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The "radical departure" snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philos[o]phy as a ground[] for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the "filibuster" represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .
[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said.
>>>
To be fair, Borger did tell viewers that "Starr thinks all judges should be allowed a vote, even if they're Democrats." But that line does not correct the clear misimpression created by the segment: that Starr called the Republican's nuclear option a "radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions" as well as "an assault on the judicial branch of government." Starr never said that, and CBS News should apologize for suggesting that he did.
P.S. The extended entry has something I haven't seen on any other blog -- a transcript of the segment, edited by me for accuracy:
<<<
BOB SCHIEFFER, anchor:
In Washington, an epic battle that has been threatened for months now may be coming to a head: the Republican threat to try to change Senate rules and do away with filibusters to make it easier to confirm some of the president's judicial appointments. It sounds like inside baseball, but it could have a dramatic impact on everything from abortion and same-sex marriage to the death penalty. Here's Gloria Borger with our report.
Sen. Charles Schumer: It's an arrogance, an abuse of power.
GLORIA BORGER reporting:
As far as political fights go, this could be one for the history books.
Sen. Majority Leader Bill Frist: They should get an up-or-down vote.
BORGER: The Senate showdown is over judges. Republicans, who want to get the president's nominees confirmed, are threatening to end the age-old filibuster, where any senator can threaten to stop any vote just by continuously talking. Right now it takes 60 votes to cut him off. The Democrats call that unconstitutional, an assault on the system of checks and balances.
But this fight goes way beyond Senate rules. This is a monumental battle about the future of the courts. Just who gets to sit on the Supreme Court? And should we appoint justices who want to rule on everything from abortion to gay marriage to civil rights?
That's why many conservatives consider the fight over judges their political Armageddon. But conservative icon and former federal Judge Ken Starr says it's gotten out of control.
Mr. KENNETH STARR (Dean, Pepperdine University School of Law): This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government.
BORGER: Starr, who investigated the Monica Lewinsky case against President Clinton, tells CBS News that the Republican plan to end the filibuster may be unwise.
Mr. STARR: It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful senators may come to regret.
BORGER: Still, Starr thinks all judges should be allowed a vote, even if they're Democrats.
During the Clinton years...
Mr. STARR: Exactly.
BORGER: ...lots of those nominees were blocked by Republicans in committee, you'll recall.
Mr. STARR: Exactly.
BORGER: Right.
Mr. STARR: And I don't think that's particularly admirable either.
BORGER: Now both sides realize they have a lot at stake here, so watch for talk of a possible compromise. They know that the polls show that partisan wrangling is not what the voters want, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: Well, seeing Ken Starr, of all people, coming out on what looks like the opposite side of many on the conservative--in the conservative wing of the Republican Party, tells me that both sides here may be looking for some way out of this showdown that's coming. Do you get that sense, Gloria?
BORGER: I do get that sense. The polls are showing that the voters really want this wrangling to stop. I think Ken Starr is saying that those on the far right and those on the far left have both gone overboard; that a president ought to get the right to pick his judges, and we ought to move beyond where we were when we had the Justice Bork fight in the '80s, Bob.
SCHIEFFER: All right. Thank you very much, Gloria.
>>>
UPDATE: Mickey Kaus says he's not so sure this is a distortion. I respond in this post.
patterico.com
Bottom line: I am not claiming (as Kaus appears to think I do) that Starr supports the nuclear option, or that the second snippet was taken out of context. It appears that Starr has reservations about the nuclear option. My beef is that the "radical, radical" language had nothing to do with his reservations about the nuclear option; it related to his disapproval of using ideology as a reason to vote against a qualified judicial nominee.
(This post originally appeared on my site on May 12.)
Posted by Patterico
thatliberalmedia.com
powerlineblog.com |
