Personal Attacks on Judicial Nominees Can End, Says Former Sen. Danforth

Former Sen. John Danforth (R-MO.), who spent last election year attacking and trying to muzzle those "divisive" religious conservatives, is now saying something sensible for a change:

(CNSNews.com) - The character assassination of judicial nominees who don't fit the ideological mold of the political class in Washington, D.C., could end if enough Americans expressed their opposition to such personal attacks, said former Sen. John Danforth in an exclusive interview with Cybercast News Service.

Danforth, a Republican from Missouri, has been a long-time friend and mentor of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and it was Danforth who helped Thomas make it through his difficult Senate confirmation hearings in 1991.

The extreme, libertine view about the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision by the court, making abortion legal nationwide up through the time of delivery, is what fueled the personal attacks on Thomas, said Danforth.

In his new book, "My Grandfather's Son, A Memoir" Thomas confirms much of Danforth's analysis. "Most of my opponents on the Judiciary Committee cared about only one thing: How would I rule on abortion rights?" writes Thomas.

The mere possibility that he might vote to either reverse or "water-down" Roe v. Wade was enough to earn the ire of potent special interest groups and leading figures on the judiciary committee, he said.

Further, the U.S. Senate takes a "results-oriented approach" to the Supreme Court, said Danforth, and this works against independent thinkers such as Thomas who are open to ideas that may be out of favor with liberal or politically correct opinion.

"There is this idea that says if you don't agree with someone, you then destroy him as a person -- and this was evident during the Thomas hearings," said Danforth. "Why should African-Americans be expected to hue to one particular ideology, why shouldn't they have as much freedom to express different viewpoints as anyone else?"

Once it became evident that Thomas would win confirmation, the opposition "pulled Anita Hill out of the pan" in a last ditch effort to derail the process, Danforth said.

***
... The people who are so committed to their ideology that they are willing to destroy another person are people who don't know him," he added.

The media critics who describe Thomas as an angry, brooding person are offering up an image that does not square with reality, Danforth told Cybercast News Service. "Go to the Supreme Court and talk to the people who work there, and you will find he's the most popular person in the building."

A Nexis search for news media articles describing Thomas as being either angry or bitter in the past month, when his memoirs were released, pulled up more than 200 results.

***
The judicial confirmation process assumed a more partisan and ideological tone beginning with President Reagan's nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court in 1987, Illya Shapiro, a senior fellow with the Center for Constitutional Studies at the Cato Institute, told Cybercast News Service.

While he does not object to senators voting against a nominee on ideological grounds, Shapiro has a jaundiced view of the filibuster rule being used as a tool to block full consideration.

"I think it's problematic when nominees have more than enough votes in the Senate to be confirmed, and yet they are prevented from even reaching the Senate floor or indeed getting out of committee," he said. "I think this is an abuse of congressional power over the judiciary."

The ideological litmus tests that became ascendant with the Bork case and continued with Thomas remain evident today, Shapiro said. Moreover, he added, these tests are now being applied to other parts of the federal judiciary where procedural rules are used to block nominations.

***
... [Danforth] now believes the best hope for reform and renewal lies with the American people.

"The real answer comes from the inherent fairness of the American people and their revulsion toward the kind of attacks that were done to Clarence Thomas," Danforth said.

"Personal attacks are wrong no matter who is doing it. I'm afraid if Hillary [Clinton] is the next president, we are going to see Republicans say that 'you set the standard, turnabout is fair play.' But it's wrong to do this regardless of where it's coming from, because human beings are being damaged," he added.

My Comments:
After what the Democrats have done to President Bush's nominees, I'm going to be disappointed if the Republicans DON'T respond in kind. They, for the most part, treated Clinton's nominees with kid gloves (arch-activist Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, got the votes of all but 2 Republicans), but that didn't buy them any good will when it came time for a Republican to nominate judges.

The only way the Democrats are going to see the need for reforming the confirmation process is if they, for once, have to pay the price by having their nominees bottled up in committee and/or filibustered.

And don't even get me started on whether Republicans should start disqualifying nominees from consideration solely on the basis of their having certain "deeply-held beliefs".


UPDATE
The above was said somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I don't really believe that any judicial nominee should be the subject of personal attacks, regardless of who nominated that person. And I view the filibuster of judicial nominees as borderline unconstitutional.

But I do hope that Republicans will start playing hardball on judicial nominations, especially should a President Hilliary! decide to send up another Ruth Bader Ginsburg.