Allan Ides wrote (on May 24)
John, with very rare
exceptions, elections do not solve policy disputes. They choose leaders
who often push agendas other than the ones in their announced platforms.
If the public doesn't like a leader's performance, they vote her out at the next
election.
Allan,
Sorry I've been a bit AWOL in responding.
I
agree that politicians sometimes (often?) push agendas that they did not
campaign on. But what should we make of a politician who does exactly what
he campaigned on? Bush said repeatedly, including during his nationally
televised debates, that if elected he would nominated judges like Scalia and
Thomas. He campaigned again on the issue in key Senate races in
2002. Does that not suggest that the filibuster is now being used to block
the effects of the political process?
(Someone else asked in another post
about my evidence for the claim that President Bush campaigned on the
confirmation issue in 2002 -- it was all over the media at the time, so I didn't
think it necessary to provide citations. But I list a few here:
Oct. 30,
2002 -- President Bush held a major East Room announcement of a new initiative
to have the Senate vote up or down on nominees within 6 months. See, e.g.,
Robert S. Greenberger, "Bush Offers Plan to Speed Approval Of Judges, but
Democrats Balk," Wall St. J. A6 (Oct. 31, 2002)
Trent Lott announced
shortly before the election that his first move should the voters elect new
Republican Senate would be to call for votes on more than 80 stalled
nominations. See Nick Anderson, "For Both Parties, a Time to Dream of What
Could Be," Los Angeles Times A11 (Oct. 30, 2002).
During a visit to
Colorado just before the election, campaigning for Senator Wayne Allard,
President Bush "thanked Allard for [helping to] secure appointments for
conservative federal judges." Susan Greene, "Bush Pushes for GOP," Denver
Post A1 (Oct. 29, 2002).
Even Nan Aaron, Alliance for Justice President,
acknowledged that Bush campaigned hard on the issue: "Undaunted by the
Senate's rejection of two of his most problematic
nominees, the president and
his emissaries on the campaign trail pledge
to continue nominating more of
the same: ultra-conservatives beholden to
special interests and out of touch
with the concerns of ordinary
Americans. Said Bush confidante Karen Hughes
recently to an Iowa
audience: "I can assure you [the president] is not going
to back down in
terms of the kinds of judges he picks." Washington Post
A20 (Oct. 29, 2002).
John C. Eastman
Professor of Law, Chapman
University School of Law
Director, The Claremont Institute Center for
Constitutional Jurisprudence
