From: pjm@anegada.sps.mot.com (Patrick J. McGuinness)
Subject: Re: NYT (6-17) -- Clinton on Cuomo & Supreme Court (re: The Decline ...)
Organization: SSDT SPS, Motorola Inc., Austin TX
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 18:32:23 GMT

In article <1992Nov5.144239.27940@midway.uchicago.edu> dave@alex.uchicago.edu (Dave Griffith) writes:
>In article <27227@dog.ee.lbl.gov> mike@inti.lbl.gov (Michael Helm) writes:
>>Dave Griffith writes:
>>>Actually, this points up a basic problem that Clinton will have with Supreme
>>>Court choices.  It's payback time for the Republicans in the Senate.  After
>>>the Bork and Thomas hearings, anyone Clinton nominates had better be squeaky
>>>clean, and willing to be publicly humiliated for it anyway.  I'm afraid we're
>>
>>The Democrats control the Senate, & thus the judiciary committee.  As
>>long as this continues, & as long as Clinton remains on good terms
>>with the Senate Democrats (an open question, based on the history of
>>the Demo party), the nominee need only be awake & toilet-trained to pass
>>muster.  However I expect Clinton to nominate well-qualified if
>>left-leaning people to the courts.
>
>I don't doubt that any nominee will pass, I simply believe they will have to 
>pass a rather nasty gauntlet to do so.  Nasty enough to turn away many
>qualified candidates.  There are always people willing to take on suicide
>missions, but they are rarely the best for the job.

Why will it turn people away?  Nothing these guys will face can come close
to the abuse heaped on Judge Bork and Justice Thomas.
And neither of these honorable men turned away, and their success was
uncertain. If you have the near-certainty of a lifetime appointment
ahead of you, you will be willing to face tough questions in
a hearing room.

To destroy Bork, Liberal groups paid several million to run attack ads
against him - an unprecedented act. Not to mention what was the most
contentious hearings on such a nominee.  The Bork opponents succeeded
in turning him into a gargoyle charicature, nothing like his real
judicial self.  With Thomas, of course, it was worse. They failed
to paint him they way they wanted, so an anonymous staffer played
a trump card that *really* turned the nomination process into a circus.

The divided Government almost guaranteed that kind of atmosphere,
expecially since certain Liberal Democratic groups would *not accept*
Consitutionalists on the Supreme Court.
Now, with Democrat control of both the White House and Senate,
you can expect more chumminess on all appointments.

>Actually, on further thought over the last couple of days, I believe I have
>figured out a way for Clinton to avoid this.  Nominate a woman, preferrably
>a minority woman.  _Nobody_ in the Republican party wants to be seen grilling
>Anita Hill again, and that is just what the cameras would make an intense
>Judiciary committee inquiry.  

Uh, Anita Hill had 23 conversations with James Brudney, an anti-Thomas
Metzenbaum staffer, and then perjured herself during testimoney about this
fact (and other facts). She deserved to be grilled.

As for any future nominee ... like I said, it doesn't matter,
as long as the Democratic majority okays it, they will pass.
Spitballs from the Republicans would have little effect.
In a report on judicial nominations I read, it noted that the level
of qualifications of Carter's nominations was far below those of
Reagan's (in terms of judicial background). Part of it was due to
Carter wanting to "diversify" in skin color and gender (though not
in judicial temperment). Some Carter appointees have been embarrassments,
like Judge Hastings of Florida.  Hastings was impeached for misconduct,
but he's back as a Congressman this year.  If Carter could get numerous
under-qualified people through without problem, so can Clinton.

Pat
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc