What you are looking at here is the baneful effects of the irresponsible wing of the Lobbyist and Influence Industry Industrial Complex in DC.

It doesn't matter what the issue is to this industry faction, all these people want is their contributors will give them more.

In the Federal budget there is about ~$800 billion in discressionary spending that the influence industry in DC fights over to get and maintain pieces of for their clients. Most of this is business money and it only pays for results. The influence industry that caters to this cash isn't whom Tom and I are talking about.

The folks were are speaking of are the non-government organizations (NGO) like People for the American Way, the Moral Majority, Moveon.org, Dobson's NGO (the name escapes me...Project for the American Family?) etc.

What is more important to these NGO influence peddlers is that the majority of their contributors just don't care what the outcome is as long as their people "fight." The contributors giving money isn't about winning and losing. It is about expressing themselves. So it is in the interest of the NGO influence peddlers to make the maximum amount of noise and nastiness to draw the maximum amount of cash so they get their percentage.

This is a confidence game to separate naive politically active marks from their cash.

The name Tom and I made up in a telephone conversation for this confidence game was "Freakonomics, D.C. Style."

Michael Barone has a great column on the Supreme Court fight here:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-7_5_05_MB.html

...that touches on some of these issues.

Nor is there any indication that People for the American Way or the Alliance for Justice will not oppose any Bush nominee with every ounce of strength they have.

These groups exist for the purpose of defeating Republican judicial nominees, and their financial supporters -- the big money people and those sending in small amounts in response to direct mail appeals -- would be furious if they meekly accept a Bush appointee as Republican senators accepted Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg when they were nominated by Bill Clinton.

Not opposing nominees would be an act of self-destruction for these groups, and Washington lobbying groups are not in the habit of self-destruction.

As for Democratic senators, they have almost unanimously accepted direction from these groups. As independent-minded and candid a senator as Russ Feingold of Wisconsin was seen reading questions to a Bush nominee off the papers supplied by these groups. A major Democratic constituency, the feminist left, expects a fight against any Bush nominee. The Democratic senators surely will not disappoint.

This means that Democrats will filibuster any Bush nominee, while the left groups attempt to tar them with any charge they can dream up. A filibuster, of course, is unprecedented, a change in what has been accepted practice in the Senate for over 200 years (the four-day holdup of Abe Fortas' nomination as chief justice in 1968 was not a filibuster -- Fortas did not have majority support).

Senate Republicans seem prepared to change the rules to put them in line with traditional Senate practice, so that only a majority is required for confirmation. Unless the left groups can peel several Republican senators away from supporting the nominee, he or she will be confirmed.

When I saw this Scott Ott article yesterday, I thought it was parody:

Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-MA, today criticized President George Bush's as-yet-unnamed replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor as a "brutal, Bible-thumping, right-wing ideologue who hates minorities, women and cocker spaniels." ...

After reading this post, I'm no longer sure.

Bear two points in mind here. This is bi-partisan behavior. Both parties are subject to it. And it favors content-free controversies, i.e., those not involving elections where the public gets a vote and it is clear who wins and who loses.

This process very much resembles a con-man who has sunk his claws into a gullible rich old lady. The rich old ladies in question are the ideologically-based contributors of the two political parties. Note that President Bush told the GOP's ideological base yesterday to calm down about this. He and Rove rightly want the Democrats alone to be perceived by the public as engaging in embarrassing behavior.

First public opinion and lobbyists will not play any role in the President's nomination. It is not the publics or lobbyists choice concerning nominations for the judicial court. This is clearly laid out in the Constitution of the United States.

Secondly the question is how long the Senate Judiciary Committee can hold up the review of a Presidential nominee for the Supreme Court? Clearly the Constitution gives the Senate the authority to make and enforce its' own rules. The ultimate question concerning the rules of the Senate is whether are not they are complicit with the Constitution of the United States in fulfilling their appointed duties. That being advice and consent concerning the judicial nominee.

The potential impact is the role money will play in political donations for Senatorial representation of 33 states in 2006. When all is said and done it is a Senate majority vote (Vice President breaks a tie) that will determine whether a judicial nominee is appointed. Can the current Senate hold up Supreme Court nominees until after the 2006 election? I doubt the country will stand for it. Even if this were to happen would the consequences be any different with a Senate super majority (two thirds or three fifths)of any party.

Bottom line our government mandates by law that nine justices sit on the Supreme Court (8 associates and one chief). Is the public not going to hold them to the letter of the law? My guess is the media will not bring any of this to light or even attempt to educate the populace concerning the matter. That would be a huge travesty is my opinion because we as Americans would have at that point truly resigned our fate to government whims and control.

Is there too much money in politics? Yes, no, maybe. But I don't really see why there shouldn't be as much money spent in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court as there is for a four-year term as President.

I would argue that part of the problem in past confirmation hearings is that the public is not listening to say the subtle exchanges between Biden and Clarence Thomas on the role of natural law on the right to privacy, but are well versed in personality issues, such as marijuana use and the Anita Hill issue. I will be interested to find out whether more money and more outlets for information on the internet will change the basic dynamic.

Focus on the Family?

First public opinion and lobbyists will not play any role in the President's nomination.

That has not been true for a very long time.

"To Bork" is very much a verb. And there were Supreme Court Justices prior to Bork where both public opinion and lobbyists played a role.

It is not the publics or lobbyists choice concerning nominations for the judicial court.

It is, however, the public's and the lobbyist's choice of how to punish and reward Senator's conduct in a Supreme Court nomination.

PD Shaw: I don't really see why there shouldn't be as much money spent in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court as there is for a four-year term as President.

Right on, P.D.

If liberal plutocrats want to spend millions of dollars to find out that a Supreme Court nominee once smoked a joint in law school ("Gotcha! Gotcha!") it's a free country.

Unfortunately this kind of money isn't paid to the most productive sectors of the economy, unless you consider stool pigeons, private detectives and prostitutes to be productive.

"But I don't really see why there shouldn't be as much money spent in a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court as there is for a four-year term as President."

If it's strictly a money issue then perhaps we should let Bill Gates, George Soros, et al run the nation? I can think of many reasons why money shouldn't be involved in the judicial selection process. Perhaps you can can expand as to why it should be.

Trent

""To Bork" is very much a verb. And there were Supreme Court Justices prior to Bork where both public opinion and lobbyists played a role."

Again this has nothing to do with public opinion and lobbyists concerning judicial nominations or appointments, it has everything to do with Senatorial elections and a Senator's aspirations for potential reelection.

"It is, however, the public's and the lobbyist's choice of how to punish and reward Senator's conduct in a Supreme Court nomination."

Now your getting to the beef of the matter. It is the Senate that confirms and appoints judge not a lobbyist group or the public. The Senator may feel beholden to a lobbyist group or the public as the vote of the public determines his employ.

USMC,

It's a money issue only to the extent that both parties' ideologically based contributors (a) have the money, (b) are willing to share it and © everyone else in the chain I described wants a share. The everyone else are willing to do & say all sorts of bizaare things to get the contributors to share. Judicial nominees are merely a vehicle for this.

Other issues serve as such vehicles too, but this is the current one. It is also a very suitable illustration of the process because it is bipartisan and content-free.

As Trent noted, it really doesn't matter who wins. What counts is that the ideological types can use judicial nominees as vehicles to express their personal issues about whatever.

Tom

"Other issues serve as such vehicles too, but this is the current one. It is also a very suitable illustration of the process because it is bipartisan and content-free."

A bipartisan issue in what way. In that both parties are clamoring for a piece of the pie (money). These Senators are under no obligation concerning any monetary gains their parties may receive. As a matter of fact they will most likely take what they can get and advocacy groups will have spent the money for naught.

The Senate is under obligation by the Constitution of the United States and the public which elected and vested powers in the Senate to perform the duty of advise and consent. The President is under obligation by the Constitution of the United States and the public which elected and vested the powers in the Executive Branch for the President to nominate a candidate for the position.

There is no bipartisanship in the appointment process, there is no bipartisanship in the nomination process. Anyone who thinks or espouses this to be the case obviously is not informed concerning the laws and the Constitution of the United States as it relates to the implementation and duties of the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary branches of government.

USMC,

You confuse symbols with reality. Money is real. The symbol here is a vehicle for political con-men to fleece gullible ideologue suckers of their money.

It's bi-partisan because Democractic con-men are doing it to Democratic contributors at the same time Republican con-men are using the same symbol to con money from Republican contributors.

Consider that you might be too trusting and innocent to understand the cynical world of real politics.

Let me introduce you to my Nigerian "cousins".

Don't forget to send money.

Tom

In that sense I guess I'm lucky because I am not donating a penny to the cause of judicial nomination / appointment. I'm simply telling the President and the Senate to do their jobs as mandated and hopefully enlightening the public to do the same.

>#7
>
>Focus on the Family?

That sounds right.

It looks like the Democrats so overplayed their hands for their campaign contributors that they managed to "brand name" themselves with the public. I wonder what kind of poll numbers the Democrats are seeing to get the kind of reaction that Debra Orin is reporting:

http://www.nypost.com/commentary/25807.htm

July 7, 2005 -- PRESIDENT Bush has yet to pick his Supreme Court nominee but he's already won Round 1 of the fight — because Democrats have come on way too strong and sound as if they're spoiling for a fight no matter who's the nominee.

That's good for Bush because in this fight, the side that comes off as too extreme will lose in the court of public opinion. Most Americans believe the high court should be above politics.

"I like very much the place we're at as Republicans because Democrats overreacted. They attacked immediately — they were too hot and too shrill," said a senior Republican strategist.

Another veteran Republican put it this way: "The Democrats are telegraphing so blatantly that they're going to tar and feather whoever the nominee is that they're losing credibility."

Typical was Sen. Ted Kennedy:

"If the president abuses his power and nominates someone who threatens to roll back the rights and freedoms of the American people, then the American people will insist that we oppose that nominee, and we intend to do so."

The numbers show the Democrats were leading with their chins because a CNN poll found an extraordinary 86 percent of Americans expect Democrats to use "inappropriate political reasons" to oppose Bush's nominee.

But the Dems have belatedly caught on that they sounded too shrill because they're suddenly doing a hasty course correction — and insisting they don't really want war after all.