Orrin Hatch knows a thing or two about Supreme Court nominations. He's been through a lot of these battles from his perch on the Senate Judiciary Committee. He's a hard-core conservative, no doubt, but showed a hint of the political realities his party is facing as we learned via Sam Stein:
A top Republican Senator on the Judiciary committee suggested on Thursday that two of the people widely believed to be under consideration for a Supreme Court appointment would present "a real dilemma" for his party to oppose.[NOTE FROM JOHN: Why was it not okay for Democrats to vote against Alito and Roberts simply because they're "really conservative," but it's now okay for Republicans to oppose Democrats for simply being "really liberal"? I specifically remember that the fact that both of those men were conservative - very conservative - wasn't enough for Democrats to vote against them. Why the double standard? Are Republicans acknowledging that really conservative nominees will no longer be permissible for any job, regardless of how qualified?]
During an interview with Scott Hennen, a conservative North Dakota radio host, former Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Orrin Hatch praised Solicitor General Elena Kagan for having a "brilliant" legal mind, and called Sonia Sotomayor, a judge on the second circuit Court of Appeals, a liberal but "tough prospect."
"You have to admit Elena Kagan is a brilliant woman," said the Utah Republican. "She is a brilliant lawyer. If he picks her, it is a real dilemma for people. And she will undoubtedly say that she will abide by the rule of law. Sonia Sotomayor probably the same thing."
On Sotomayor, he added: "She is very liberal... she is a tough prospect. She is not only female but she is a Latino. She grew up in the housing projects. She understands human hardship but she is extremely liberal, no question about it."
By the time the nomination comes to a vote, Al Franken should be seated. That means the Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority ( that is, if we can ever count on Specter). Not that the GOP would ever filibuster a judicial nomination after all the squawking they did during the Bush years.
I did find the article in today's Washington Post, which described the GOP's Supreme Court operation under Bush, fascinating:
Stuart Roy, a public relations consultant who headed communications strategy at Progress for America, recalled how preparations began long before Roberts was nominated. The group placed organizers in 17 key states and lined up private planes so operatives could quickly gather biographical information once a candidate was announced.Correct on two points: 1) Our side was woefully unprepared. Shockingly so. The groups who were supposed to be focused on Supreme Court nominations were just inadequate. Still not sure what the strategy for Roberts and Alito was; 2) The GOP side has no power this time. None.
The group spent about $15 million on the Roberts, Alito and Harriet E. Miers nominations, Roy estimates, though Miers's ended badly amid conservative opposition.
"We had the luxury of a lot of people and a well-funded effort," Roy said. "In those two battles, I think we definitely ran circles around the left. . . . I very much doubt that will be the case this time around."
