June 21, 2003
Kerry threatens filibuster of Bush nominees
John Kerry, in what seems like a heavy-handed move by a presidential candidate, said he would filibuster any Supreme Court nominee that Bush sends before Congress who
‘would turn back the clock on a woman’s right to choose or the Constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties, and on the laws protecting workers and the environment…’
Traditionally, presidential candidates tend to not take a hard-lined view on any major issue (especially abortion) out of fear of alienating a part of their political base. This move, it seems, is out of mere neccessity. The NYTimes writes that
The court is divided over Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized most forms of abortion. Advocates of abortion rights have argued that the decision is in danger because of Mr. Bush's opposition to legalized abortion.
Another conservative, pro-lifer on the bench and the scale could indeed tip the other way, resulting in Roe v. Wade being overturned by the high court.
Now, I think:
If the issue of Roe v. Wade becomes a hotly contested point of the 2004 Presidential Campaign, then we are all in for a dirty and emotional trip. Abortion disputes go above and beyond politics, tapping into the inner core of personal feelings and values, which are not always driven by logical and clear argumentation and thinking. This will only muddy an already difficult (and because of the 2000 Election) and heated contest. We need to find the person with the best ideas and credentials for the job; chasing Roe v. Wade will only make that task more difficult.
Posted by Ryan at June 21, 2003 09:25 AMThis is what Kerry should NOT do. Affiliate himself with the bureaucracy and other pols. No matter what he has to say, it will be long winded and traditional. What he might gain in publicity he will lose in stature.
Everyone knows his and the other Dems position on abortion, so his planned filibuster is a waste of his time and whatever image he has as a thoughful legislator will disappear. It’s like fighting with pigs in the mud. Eventually you realize they like it, and by that time you’re all dirty.
Posted by: Rick at June 21, 2003 01:09 PMWhat’s more, Kerry is being hypocritical, by saying this and then fightening against Bush’s alleged ‘litmus test.’
Posted by: Ry Rivard at June 21, 2003 02:50 PMKerry should be willing to filibuster any Bush nominee to the Supreme Court, but not on ideological grounds. The Senate should refuse to confirm any of Bush’s nominees to the Supreme Court and they should do it for the health of our republic.
When the Supreme Court handed down their decision in Bush v Gore, they set up the means to arrange for their own succession. Allowing the Supreme Court to have a hand in their own succession weakens the separation of powers, one of founding principles upon which our republic is built.
If necessary, the Supreme Court can function with less than a full complement of judges until the results of the election in 2004. If Bush manages to win that election without the help of the Supreme Court, he can nominate to his heart’s content.
