ClydeR
05-04-2009, 10:56 AM
Reid (http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/conservatives-gear-up-for-high-court-fight-2009-05-01.html) reports that Senate insiders are leaning toward Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), who's actually the fourth most senior member behind Grassley, Hatch, and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), who would have to give up his position as Minority Whip to take the Ranking Member post.
Republican members of the Judiciary panel will meet next week to pick a new ranking member from amongst themselves. Senate aides say Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the fourth-ranking member on the panel, has the inside edge.
Recognizing their deficit in the Senate, Sekulow and other conservative operatives said Sessions could be counted on at least to question the eventual nominee closely, as President Bush's two nominees — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito — underwent during their confirmation hearings.
Moreover, conservatives shudder at the notion of Grassley leading the panel. Writing on The Corner (http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRhMWQ3MTBhMDYzNGU5ZmE4NTFkN2E4OTc0MjZiNjk=), Ed Whelan, a former Judiciary Committee Counsel and now the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, argued that Grassley wouldn't be the best pick.
"[H]e has never demonstrated any real understanding of, or even interest in, the grand debates over the role of the Courts," Whelan wrote. "And he is not the most effective questioner on legal issues."
Whelan told me that Republicans need a sharp questioner to counter Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), not a policy wonk like Grassley.
"Given how tough Leahy can be, you need to have someone who's smart and savvy, knows constitutional law and presents well," he said. "If you don't have that, and if you have someone who has a very different skill set that sen Grassley has, it'd be very messy."
More... (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/tag/sen-orrin-hatch/)
This is definitely what the Republicans need to do now. Senators like Grassley and Hatch are not the best choice to challenge Obama's court nominees, even though they have seniority. This is the sort of struggle Republicans need to have to purify what the party stands for.
Senator Sessions has a history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions) of supporting the things that have to be important to the Republican Party going forward if it is going to regain the position of influence that it had at the beginning of George W. Bush's administration -- things like opposing "un-American, Communist-inspired" groups like the NAACP and the ACLU, opposing abortion, opposing illegal Mexicans, supporting the responsible use of torture, and being sure that conservative groups aren't demonized. I don't agree with Sessions on the KKK (I think they would be bad even if they didn't smoke marijuana), but all of his other positions are pretty good.
Besides that, the Alabama Senator's fiery questioning will not seem so bad because of his charming Southern accent. He's definitely the best choice to do the lead the opposition questioning if the nominee is a female and a minority.
Republican members of the Judiciary panel will meet next week to pick a new ranking member from amongst themselves. Senate aides say Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the fourth-ranking member on the panel, has the inside edge.
Recognizing their deficit in the Senate, Sekulow and other conservative operatives said Sessions could be counted on at least to question the eventual nominee closely, as President Bush's two nominees — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito — underwent during their confirmation hearings.
Moreover, conservatives shudder at the notion of Grassley leading the panel. Writing on The Corner (http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmRhMWQ3MTBhMDYzNGU5ZmE4NTFkN2E4OTc0MjZiNjk=), Ed Whelan, a former Judiciary Committee Counsel and now the President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, argued that Grassley wouldn't be the best pick.
"[H]e has never demonstrated any real understanding of, or even interest in, the grand debates over the role of the Courts," Whelan wrote. "And he is not the most effective questioner on legal issues."
Whelan told me that Republicans need a sharp questioner to counter Chairman Pat Leahy (D-Vt.), not a policy wonk like Grassley.
"Given how tough Leahy can be, you need to have someone who's smart and savvy, knows constitutional law and presents well," he said. "If you don't have that, and if you have someone who has a very different skill set that sen Grassley has, it'd be very messy."
More... (http://briefingroom.thehill.com/tag/sen-orrin-hatch/)
This is definitely what the Republicans need to do now. Senators like Grassley and Hatch are not the best choice to challenge Obama's court nominees, even though they have seniority. This is the sort of struggle Republicans need to have to purify what the party stands for.
Senator Sessions has a history (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Sessions) of supporting the things that have to be important to the Republican Party going forward if it is going to regain the position of influence that it had at the beginning of George W. Bush's administration -- things like opposing "un-American, Communist-inspired" groups like the NAACP and the ACLU, opposing abortion, opposing illegal Mexicans, supporting the responsible use of torture, and being sure that conservative groups aren't demonized. I don't agree with Sessions on the KKK (I think they would be bad even if they didn't smoke marijuana), but all of his other positions are pretty good.
Besides that, the Alabama Senator's fiery questioning will not seem so bad because of his charming Southern accent. He's definitely the best choice to do the lead the opposition questioning if the nominee is a female and a minority.