Thursday, July 1, 2010
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Confirmation Politics 101
The Washington Post
5/5/09
The search for the man (or woman) who will replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter began in earnest Monday as President Barack Obama placed calls to Sens. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to sound them out on the process.
"[President Obama] vowed to consult regularly with Senators in both parties to ensure an orderly confirmation process that will allow Justice Souter's replacement to be confirmed by the beginning of the Court's next session," according to a readout on the calls released by the White House.
The outreach to Senators to gauge their thoughts on the critical traits present in any picks is one of any number of spoken and unspoken rules that must be followed to ensure that the eventual nominee has the best chance at confirmation possible.
What transpires between yesterday, the day the nominee is announced and the day he or she is either confirmed or rejected is Washington at its best (or worst, depending on your perspective) -- a confluence of Senate prerogatives, interest group politics and spin wars with the highest possible stakes: a lifetime appointment to the most powerful bench in the country.
"From a political perspective it is a very unique process," said Steve Schmidt, who oversaw the confirmation fights for Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. "It is one of the very few occasions when the three branches of government come together."
The process can strengthen or weaken a president's hand depending on how it is handled. President George W. Bush drew kudos for his pick of Roberts and the roll-out was flawless -- painting the now-Chief Justice as a squeaky clean legal genius. Bush was widely castigated months later, however, for nominating Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, for the second vacancy. Bush badly misjudged the opinion of grassroots conservatives to the pick and watched as even Republican Senator bucked the pick. Miers withdrew roughly three weeks after she was nominated.
What are the essential steps that must be followed to navigate the treacherous politics of a Supreme Court pick? We consulted with a few people -- including Schmidt -- who have been deep in the trenches of such fights. Here are their recommendations:
* Attention Must Be Paid: The Senate -- especially those members who sit on the Judiciary Committee -- expects to be consulted directly by the president in advance of the pick being made. That's not to say they want their particular favorite to be the pick but rather that they want to feel as though they understand the way the president is thinking about the selection. (It's all very high minded stuff.) Ed Gillespie, who along with Schmidt managed the Roberts and Alito confirmations, said that "understanding that the Senate is a full partner in this process...is really helpful." Obama, who spent several years in the Senate before being elected president, already appears to be doing his due diligence: he spoke with Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (Vt.) last Friday and then, as noted above, with Specter and Hatch on Monday. The more conversations like these the better, according to the experts.
* Read Up, Prepare for the Worst: Any person who will be considered for a Supreme Court vacancy is certain to have said and written any number of things over their career in law. Find those writings -- and read them as carefully as possible. If the person did any government work, find any emails he or she sent. Read them. Assume that everything the nominee has EVER written, even in private correspondence, will be made public somehow and someway. Expect "thoroughly misleading attacks about the intent of a single sentence written in one out of hundreds of thousands of emails," said Schmidt.
* Understand the (Interest Group) Universe: The Senate may be the final arbiter on whether the nominee will be confirmed or not but the various interest groups that gear up every time there is an Supreme Court opening have a tremendous say over the landscape on which the hearings are conducted. People for the American Way, Judicial Confirmation Network, NARAL Pro-Choice America and American Center for Law & Justice are among the regular players who are certain to play a role -- how big or small depends on whom Obama picks -- in the confirmation process. (Remember back to NARAL's controversial ad, which they pulled down, that accused Roberts of defending abortion clinic bombers. That had the effect of making Roberts into a more sympathetic figure during his confirmation hearings.) The x-factor of course is new groups that pop up to defend or damage the nominee with little ability to check where the money comes from and who is behind the efforts.
* A Date Certain Set: Politics abhors a vacuum and that is exactly what is created from the moment the nominee is formally introduced to the time he or she goes before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions. The longer the time between those two events, the more danger the nominee is in as his or her detractors work to sway public opinion by a combing through of their public and private statements and writings to paint them as badly out of the mainstream. "The longer there is a person who is unable to defend themselves and there are questions that can be raised about that person's fitness, there accumulates a weight of public opinion that maybe there is something wrong with this person," said Schmidt. To avoid that twisting in the wind phenomenon, work as quickly as possible to secure support from the chairman and ranking member on Judiciary for a date certain that the hearings will start. Obama and his team are already seeking to speed up the timing of the process; in his daily briefing on Monday, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that "this is something the president believes must be done before the Court starts its work again in October."
5/5/09
The search for the man (or woman) who will replace retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter began in earnest Monday as President Barack Obama placed calls to Sens. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) and Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to sound them out on the process.
"[President Obama] vowed to consult regularly with Senators in both parties to ensure an orderly confirmation process that will allow Justice Souter's replacement to be confirmed by the beginning of the Court's next session," according to a readout on the calls released by the White House.
The outreach to Senators to gauge their thoughts on the critical traits present in any picks is one of any number of spoken and unspoken rules that must be followed to ensure that the eventual nominee has the best chance at confirmation possible.
What transpires between yesterday, the day the nominee is announced and the day he or she is either confirmed or rejected is Washington at its best (or worst, depending on your perspective) -- a confluence of Senate prerogatives, interest group politics and spin wars with the highest possible stakes: a lifetime appointment to the most powerful bench in the country.
"From a political perspective it is a very unique process," said Steve Schmidt, who oversaw the confirmation fights for Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. "It is one of the very few occasions when the three branches of government come together."
The process can strengthen or weaken a president's hand depending on how it is handled. President George W. Bush drew kudos for his pick of Roberts and the roll-out was flawless -- painting the now-Chief Justice as a squeaky clean legal genius. Bush was widely castigated months later, however, for nominating Harriet Miers, his White House counsel, for the second vacancy. Bush badly misjudged the opinion of grassroots conservatives to the pick and watched as even Republican Senator bucked the pick. Miers withdrew roughly three weeks after she was nominated.
What are the essential steps that must be followed to navigate the treacherous politics of a Supreme Court pick? We consulted with a few people -- including Schmidt -- who have been deep in the trenches of such fights. Here are their recommendations:
* Attention Must Be Paid: The Senate -- especially those members who sit on the Judiciary Committee -- expects to be consulted directly by the president in advance of the pick being made. That's not to say they want their particular favorite to be the pick but rather that they want to feel as though they understand the way the president is thinking about the selection. (It's all very high minded stuff.) Ed Gillespie, who along with Schmidt managed the Roberts and Alito confirmations, said that "understanding that the Senate is a full partner in this process...is really helpful." Obama, who spent several years in the Senate before being elected president, already appears to be doing his due diligence: he spoke with Judiciary Committee Chair Pat Leahy (Vt.) last Friday and then, as noted above, with Specter and Hatch on Monday. The more conversations like these the better, according to the experts.
* Read Up, Prepare for the Worst: Any person who will be considered for a Supreme Court vacancy is certain to have said and written any number of things over their career in law. Find those writings -- and read them as carefully as possible. If the person did any government work, find any emails he or she sent. Read them. Assume that everything the nominee has EVER written, even in private correspondence, will be made public somehow and someway. Expect "thoroughly misleading attacks about the intent of a single sentence written in one out of hundreds of thousands of emails," said Schmidt.
* Understand the (Interest Group) Universe: The Senate may be the final arbiter on whether the nominee will be confirmed or not but the various interest groups that gear up every time there is an Supreme Court opening have a tremendous say over the landscape on which the hearings are conducted. People for the American Way, Judicial Confirmation Network, NARAL Pro-Choice America and American Center for Law & Justice are among the regular players who are certain to play a role -- how big or small depends on whom Obama picks -- in the confirmation process. (Remember back to NARAL's controversial ad, which they pulled down, that accused Roberts of defending abortion clinic bombers. That had the effect of making Roberts into a more sympathetic figure during his confirmation hearings.) The x-factor of course is new groups that pop up to defend or damage the nominee with little ability to check where the money comes from and who is behind the efforts.
* A Date Certain Set: Politics abhors a vacuum and that is exactly what is created from the moment the nominee is formally introduced to the time he or she goes before the Judiciary Committee to answer questions. The longer the time between those two events, the more danger the nominee is in as his or her detractors work to sway public opinion by a combing through of their public and private statements and writings to paint them as badly out of the mainstream. "The longer there is a person who is unable to defend themselves and there are questions that can be raised about that person's fitness, there accumulates a weight of public opinion that maybe there is something wrong with this person," said Schmidt. To avoid that twisting in the wind phenomenon, work as quickly as possible to secure support from the chairman and ranking member on Judiciary for a date certain that the hearings will start. Obama and his team are already seeking to speed up the timing of the process; in his daily briefing on Monday, press secretary Robert Gibbs said that "this is something the president believes must be done before the Court starts its work again in October."
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Mugabe's Zimbabwe
Throughout the past couple of years much has been made of life in Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe's leader for 29 years, Robert Mugabe, was once seen as a stable and capable leader. A long time freedom fighter for the oppressed black majority, Mugabe rose to power in the early 1980s. Yet, recently Mugabe has fallen into despotism. He seemingly exerts absolute control over his nation and seems less and less willing to embrace the democratic principles he once stood for.
Using the two articles provided to you, please comment. Discuss in what ways Mugabe's government is undemocratic and what, if anything, you believe the U.S. should do in response.
Comment should be at least 500 words.
Using the two articles provided to you, please comment. Discuss in what ways Mugabe's government is undemocratic and what, if anything, you believe the U.S. should do in response.
Comment should be at least 500 words.
Monday, February 9, 2009
The Media's Relationship with the Government
Below you will find various links to stories about the role the media plays in our political system. Below these links, one will find recent Daily Show clips dealing with the same media/government relationship.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec08/campaignmedia_10-23.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/insider/media/jan-june08/mediaprimary_02-27.html
http://pbs-newshour.onstreammedia.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=template.html&query=media+bias&keywords=media+bias&category=blank
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/media/july-dec08/campaignmedia_10-23.html
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/insider/media/jan-june08/mediaprimary_02-27.html
http://pbs-newshour.onstreammedia.com/cgi-bin/visearch?user=pbs-newshour&template=template.html&query=media+bias&keywords=media+bias&category=blank
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
