THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 7 AND 5! Weve marveled as big scribes fail to explain that ballyhooed Senate agreement: // link // print // previous // next //
WEDNESDAY, MAY 25, 2005
UPDATE--NOW FOR SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT: Reading Salon, we find that Tim Grieve joins Kevin Drum (see below) in thinking that the sixth and seventh judges in question are Richard Griffin and David McKeague. Meanwhile, the New York Times and the Washington Post seem to suggest that Judges 6 and 7 are Kavanaugh and Haynes (see excerpts below). Is there any such thing as a fact any more? Searching further, we find universal agreement on the basic outline--ten judges were turned down in Bush's first term, three of whom refused renomination. That leaves seven renominations. Who exactly are the seven? Easier asked than answered. Based on a 4/22 WashPost report, it seems that McKeague and Richard Griffin were part of the original seven, along with Brown/Pryor/Owen/Myers/Saad. Kavanaugh and Haynes are first-time nominees. All other conundra remain.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 7 AND 5: Sometimes we marvel at our press corps—and weve marveled this week as theyve failed to explain the difference between 7 and 5. We refer to the Gang of 14's filibuster agreement, announced on Monday night. Instantly, Kevin Drum raised an obvious question—an obvious question which would have occurred to any sentient human observer:
DRUM (5/23/05): I guess I'm puzzled...[T]he text of the deal only mentions five nominees. The group agreed to invoke cloture for three of the filibustered nominees (Brown, Owen, and Pryor), which means they'll be confirmed, and made "no commitment" on two of the nominees (Myers and Saad), which presumably means at least a few of the Democrats will agree to continue filibustering them and their nominations are dead...Duh! What am I missing here? Drum asked, acting like a sentient human. Although Drum had the wrong names of the Unmentioned Two, his question would have occurred to anyone who had followed this story. As any such observer would know, we had been talking for the past several months about the seven nominations in question. The text of the deal only mentioned five. So why the jump from 7 to 5? What happened to the two others?
Quick correction: Drums question would have occurred to anyone—except to a six- or seven-figure Washington journalist. As Monday evenings interviews unfolded, we saw no one ask the Gang of 14 about the status of The Unmentioned Two. On Tuesday morning, only the New York Times attempted to deal with the mystery. Deep in a lengthy report, Carl Hulse semi-attempted to explain it:
HULSE (5/24/05): Democratic officials said an unwritten aspect of the pact was that two nominees not named in the deal—Brett M. Kavanaugh and William J. Haynes—would not be confirmed and would be turned aside either at the committee level or on the floor.Yes, that was amazingly vague, but at least Hulse noticed an obvious fact; wed been talking for months about seven nominees, and the text of the deal mentioned five. But according to Nexis, no other American newspaper mentioned Kavanaughs name Tuesday morning. (The AP made a fleeting reference—see below.) In particular, the Washington Post made no attempt to explain the difference between 7 and 5.
And yes, the mystery continues. Right to this moment, we have no earthly clue about the fate of the Unmentioned Two. Last night, confusion reigned all over cable about the fate of the Unmentioned Two—and about the fate of Myers and Saad, for that matter. On Special Report, even the all-stars ranted and raged, completely confused by the terms of the deal. But so what? When members of the Gang of 14 have been interviewed on major news programs, your millionaire journalists have been too dense to ask the obvious questions. Last night, for example, two of the Gang of 14 sat with Gwen Ifill on The NewsHour. Yes, its our very brightest news show; everyone knows they have to pretend this. And here you see the one hapless exchange that may have semi-concerned Drums obvious question. Ifill was speaking with Lincoln Chaffee, (R-RI), one of the merry band:
IFILL (5/24/05): But Sen. Chafee, why these three particular nominees? I think most Americans don't know the difference between why these three and not others.We think Ifills question was rendered in English, and it vaguely seemed that it might semi-touch on Drums completely obvious question. Result? Chafees answer was completely unresponsive—and Ifill didnt come back for more. Ifill staged a full-scale interview with Chafee and fellow gang-banger Ben Nelson. But she never asked about Kavanaugh and Haynes—never asked Drums obvious question. To all appearances, it never crossed her mind to inquire about the difference between 7 and 5. To all appearances, she didnt notice the fact that 2 of the 7 had gone unmentioned in the text of the ballyhooed deal.
Meanwhile, can anyone begin to explain the nature of this ballyhooed agreement? Forget about the Unmentioned Two; can anyone being to explain the status of Myers and Saad? For the past 36 hours, nothing else has been discussed—and no one has the slightest idea what the agreement means. Clearly, Owen, Brown and Pryor will get up-or-down votes; the 7 Dems have agreed not to filibuster in these three cases. But does anybody understand what has been agreed about Myers and Saad? Does anybody know how the status of Myers/Saad differs from that of Kavanaugh/Haynes? In its hapless coverage this morning, the Washington Pots presents this puzzler, penned by reporter Charles Babington:
BABINGTON (5/25/05): The pact specifically promised to drop long-standing Democratic filibusters of Owen and two other appellate nominees strongly opposed by liberals: Janice Rogers Brown of California and William H. Pryor Jr. of Alabama. Their confirmation votes are likely next month, Senate aides said. The agreement said there would be no commitment to allow votes on two other nominees, William G. Myers III and Henry Saad.Beyond those provisions, the agreement is murky? Does anyone know what Babington means when he says there would be no commitment to allow votes on two other nominees, William G. Myers III and Henry Saad? Well admit it—we dont have the slightest idea what that murky construction might mean. Later, in his closing paragraph, Babington provided a bit of semi-clarity:
BABINGTON: Senators differed on the likely fate of Myers, an Idahoan. Frist's staff said Senate leaders will seek a vote on the appellate court nominee, presumably triggering a Democratic filibuster that would kill his chances. The filibuster would not violate the two-page agreement, Senate aides said, but it might cause some Americans to wonder why Democrats were using the delaying tactic so soon after the heralded announcement. "The American people are going to be smart enough to realize what's going on here," said Reid spokesman Jim Manley.This seems to mean that Myers and Saad will be filibustered; the 7 Dems will so proceed, and the 7 Reps wont respond with the nuclear option. But whats the agreement on Kavanaugh and Haynes? Babington makes no attempt to say. And, as far as we have seen, no one has bothered to ask.
No, brilliant Ifill didnt ask. Neither have her broadcasting colleagues, as they chat with the Gang of 14. Moments after the deal was announced, Drum asked the worlds most obvious question. Two days later, his question still hasnt been answered—and to all appearances, your millionaire journalists havent bothered to ask. Result? Chaos reigns all over cable as pundits try to decipher this deal. It took Kevin Drum about ten seconds to note the difference between 7 and 5. Last night, Ifill blathered with the Gang of 14, and failed to notice the Difference of 2. Sometimes we simply sit and marvel at the way this strange group does its business.
DONT ASK, DONT TELL: On Mondays extra hour of Hardball (9 PM Eastern), Chris Matthews chatted with Gang of 14 member Lindsey Graham (R-SC). Instantly, Graham offered a pregnant remark—a grabber, a hint of real news:
MATTHEWS (5/23/05): OK. Instead of blowing up the Senate, what`s the deal?Huh! Graham seemed to say that, as part of the agreement, some of Bushs nominees will get voted down in one of those famous up-or-down votes. But remember, he was speaking to a consummate halfwit—MSNBCs Chris Matthews. When Matthews asked a pointless follow-up question, Graham tried to cue him again:
MATTHEWS: If I were President Bush, I`d say, "I have got seven nominees up there on the Hill. Two of them are dead now. You`re only going to consider five. I also am not sure you`re going to actually vote on my Supreme Court nominees down the road because Democrats might say `extraordinary circumstances.` So I could get hurt here."Wouldnt anyone with an ounce of sense follow up on Grahams grabber? But Matthews moved to a typical cable news question—a question about the polling. He didnt ask who will probably fail—and weve seen no one in the mainstream press corps mention this comment by Graham since then. For example, did Ifill ask Chafee or Nelson last night? Were not sure. Does the pope worship Druids?
For the record, Matthews has been in extra-special High Clown Mode for the past two nights. During Mondays regular, 7 PM hour, he broke off live coverage of The Agreement so he could run extended footage of himself being parodied on Saturday Night Live. (Earlier, he had wasted time showing footage of Warren Beatty mentioning Hardball in a speech.) His interview with Graham came about 90 minutes later; despite the extra time to think, he still showed no sign of having noticed the difference between 7 and 5. And when Graham tossed him a dirty little secret (two times!), the dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks self-promoter simply stared off into air. Last nights interviews were especially clownish, as he rattled on and on—and on and on—about nominations he thinks will be made, and about issues that everyone agreed were not central. Go ahead—read the full transcripts from the past two nights, and marvel at the intellectual functioning of your millionaire press corps.
WHO IS JANICE ROGERS BROWN: This morning, the Post does run an interesting editorial about Owen/Brown/Pryor—the three nominees who will get confirmed. The editors hope that Brown will go down. They offer this intriguing summary:
WASHINGTON POST EDITORIAL (5/25/05): Justice Brown, meanwhile, is one of the most overtly ideological nominees of either party in many years. In speeches she has openly yearned for the "Lochner era," a period in the early decades of the 20th century during which the Supreme Court invalidated various regulatory actions in the name of a supposed right of free contract. This is one of the most discredited periods of the court's history, a time when the courts wrote libertarian economic theory into the Constitution. And her speeches are not merely playful musings, for Justice Brown's work on the court in California reflects the same nostalgia. For years, Republicans have railed against "judicial activism." If that term has any meaning, it certainly describes Justice Brown's adventurous approach to economic liberties.Interesting. Wed never heard of the Lochner era, and wed never heard of it for a good reason—we read the Post and the New York Times every day. As weve told you again and again, if you want to get occasional information about the days main events, you have to turn to these papers editorials. According to Nexis, the word Lochner has appeared in no other Post discussion of Brown over the past six months, and it has appeared in the Times only once—as part of a 7700-word magazine piece by Jeffrey Rosen, a superlative piece about legal issues raised by these nominations. (Needless to say, Rosens lengthy report produced no discussion in the papers news pages, or anywhere else in the mainstream press.) As theyve shown us again in the past few days, your celebrity news orgs avoid information the way hypochondriacs flee from the plague. What did Graham mean? They dont care! What about Kavanaugh and Haynes? They dont ask! What is Browns record? You can go fly your kite! The most obvious questions dont enter their minds, and their intellectual superiors on the web insist they represent the current state pf perfection. Try to believe—just try to believe—that this is the current state of the rational animal, the self-pimping race which has sung its own praises since the very dawn of the west. Try to believe that this represents the current state of the art in human perfectibility—and that incomparable observers get soundly scolded for pointing this amazing fact out.
And oh yes—they simply refuse to tell you the facts about the recent history of judicial nominations. For that, sadly, you have to come here. Part 3 of that tale lies below.
EXIT OKRENT—Part 3 tomorrow.
PART 3—BLUE CLIPS FOR BLACK GUYS: Yep—George Allen was really starting to feel it on Tuesday mornings Imus program. After all, you know the passion Republicans feel for those key up-or-down votes! Allen, a GOP senator from Virginia, started to glory-day, yelp and holler as he explained this republics inspiring approach to these crucial matters:
ALLEN (5/24/05): I really dont think that its any tough deal to ask a senator to get out of their seat, stand up, show some backbone and spine, get off their haunches and vote yes or vote no on a judicial nomination and then explain to their constituents in their home states why they voted the way they did, and thats what the senators are supposed to do. There was never any rule of a 60-seat majority, or a 60-vote majority for nomination or confirmation of judges. It was a mere majority. What is trying to be done is to restore the approach that was taken for 214 years of this republic.It sounded great—but Allens memory was failing. In fact, that wasnt the approach for eight years of this republic when Bill Clinton sat in the White House, and Allen knows this perfectly well (and he knows that Imus listeners dont). For example, no one voted yes or no on Jim Lyons, then explained to their constituents why they voted the way they did (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/24/05). And no one voted yes or no on John Tait when he was nominated in Idaho (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 5/23/05). Indeed, when Lyons was denied his up-or-down vote in 1999, the Rocky Mountain News explained the approach that actually obtained at the time in this republic. There were, at last report, 35 nominees slowly turning in the wind at the Senate Judiciary Committee, the candid paper correctly noted, and most of them are likely to hang in that position until after the 2000 election. The Republicans hope to win the presidency as well as keep control of the Senate next year, enabling them to install an entirely different slate of judges. That was the actual approach in this republic, and Allen was misleading Imus audience—with the compliance of a cowering press corps, a press corps that hasnt bothered explaining the facts of our shared recent past. In the past month, Republicans have been free to prate and posture about their passion for up-or-down votes because the wide swath of the mainstream press has let them dissemble this way.
It wasnt always quite this hard to get information on this topic. Lets go back to November 1997, for example; how were nominations being handled back then? In Texas, some people were actually told. In the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Washington bureau chief Ron Hutcheson discussed a local case:
HUTCHESON (11/29/97): Fort Worth lawyer Michael Schattman refuses to go quietly, but his nomination as a federal judge is as dead as the dry fall leaves. Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas killed it with a single check mark on a blue piece of paper.For that matter, the story of Schattmans aborted nomination was also a good example of the way the Senates traditions depart from the things George Allen tells voters. In fact, Schattman was another Clinton nominee who never got that up-or-down vote—the vote for which the modern Republican has such an unbridled passion. Instead, Schattman got blue-slipped by Texas senator Phil Gramm. Hutcheson explain how that works:
HUTCHESON (continuing directly): In theory, a senator opposed to a nomination would present his complaints at a confirmation hearing. The pros and cons of the nominee would be debated in public and decided by a public vote.The veto power is extended to senators irrespective of their party affiliations, Hutcheson wrote—describing a procedure then in effect, a procedure abandoned by the GOP when George Bush found his way to the White House. Well discuss that in more detail tomorrow, but for today, lets recall the way Republican senators used blue slips to kill up-or-down votes. In the case of Schattman, heres the way two GOP senators failed to get out of their seat, stand up, show some backbone and spine, get off their haunches and vote yes or vote no on a judicial nomination:
HUTCHESON: Gramm, who did not object to Schattman's nomination when it was first submitted in late 1995, filed his negative blue slip early this year. The state's other Republican senator, Kay Bailey Hutchison, joined him in opposing the appointment.How weird! Everything Allen swears by now was ducked in the case of Schattman! Did Senator Hutchison explain to constituents in her home state why she voted the way she did, as Allen described to the rubes Tuesday morning? Hay-yul, no! Instead, the sweet-talking solon deep-sixed Schattman, then blew off Hutchesons questions. And yes, that is actually the way this procedure worked as dozens of Clinton nominees were denied their up-or-down vote. Despite Allens world-class dissembling, thats the actual approach that was taken for 214 years of this republic—or at least for a significant recent period.
And then, there were those blue slips for black guys. In August 2000, USA Todays Joan Biskupic looked back on the high rejection rates of Clintons minority judicial nominees. The Senate's most conservative members consistently have played a leading role in blocking minority nominees, she wrote. Hatch, Ashcroft and other key Republicans reject any suggestion that race is a factor. Did black (and brown) guys get their up-or-down votes? Despite the things you hear on Imus, not on this planet, they didnt. As a matter of fact, in December 2000, just before leaving office, Clinton finally appointed Roger Gregory to be the first black judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Richmond). And guess what? He had to name Gregory to a recess appointment because all his Fourth Circuit nominations had been blue-slipped for the prior five years! Up-or-down votes had not been forthcoming. Neil Lewis reviewed the play-by-play in the New York Times:
LEWIS (12/28/00): "I have tried for five years to put an African-American on the Fourth Circuit—for five years," Mr. Clinton said as he presented Mr. Gregory before reporters. "I think it is most unfortunate that it has not been done, and I just determined to do it. It's just time to do it."But then, as Biskupic had reported in August, Clintons black and brown nominees had been met with a shower of blue slips. Enrique Morenos? Blue-slipped in Texas (Gramm and Hutchison doing the honors). Jorge Rangel? Blue-slipped there too. Richard Paez? Blue-slipped in Alabama (four years). And then, of course, there was Ronnie White. Eventually, White got his up-or-down vote—but hed been blue-slipped for several years. In June 1999, Deirdre Shesgreen reviewed the case, then two years old, in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It was another inspiring example of the GOPs passion for those sacred up-or-down votes:
SHESGREEN (6/24/99): Two years ago, President Bill Clinton nominated Ronnie White to be a federal judge in St. Louis.Later, Ashcroft told the Post-Dispatch that he did not use the prerogatives of Senate power—blue slips and holds—to stop Judge White last year. The paper said it took Ashcroft at his word. And who knows—maybe he even was telling the truth! After all, Ashcroft had shown his devotion to up-or-down votes back in 1995. William Freivogel told the inspiring tale in the Post-Dispatch:
FREIVOGEL (6/2/95): Sen. John Ashcroft, R-Mo., killed the expected judicial nomination of a Jefferson City lawyer by complaining to the White House about a 12-year-old legal quarrel he had with the Democratic attorney, a White House official says.Ashcroft, of course, had excellent reasons for denying Bartlett his up-or-down vote. In January 2001, Shesgreen reviewed the matter in the Post-Dispatch:
SHESGREEN (1/11/01): Abner Mikva, who was serving as Clinton's White House counsel when Bartlett was up for the judgeship, said he called Ashcroft to find out why he had objected.Oh. Of course, this was Mikvas account of the matter. A more inspiring general account was obtained years earlier from one of Ashcrofts top aides. Tim Poor, in the Post-Dispatch:
POOR (11/2/97): In his quest to prevent "judicial activists" from reaching the federal bench, Sen. John Ashcroft isn't just bucking the Democratic White House, but members of his own party as well.Inspiring stuff! Today, Allen hollers and glory-days about the wonders of up-or-down votes. But your recent history is actually quite different. With so many solons dissembling so grandly, why wont big newspapers tell it?
In closing, lets get back to those blue slips for black guys, the ones that Helms, for one, dished out. Did Clintons picks get the slip due to race? For ourselves, we wouldnt assume that. Its entirely possible that some of these nominees seemed more liberal than some others, the ones who did get votes. But when you hear current pleasing tales about this republics great traditions and precedents, you and your neighbors are being deceived. Despite this, your big newspapers have stared into air, and your big cable hosts refuse to confront yelping dissemblers with actual facts. The stories weve been presenting this week represent your real recent history. This history is becoming lost, stolen and strayed as Allen yelps and glory-days—and as your big newspapers cower.
TOMORROW: Why dont Senators Boxer and Feinstein hand Rogers Brown a big blue slip?