By Dick Morris - 01/25/06 12:00 AM EST
The reason Democrats and liberals did not get more popular traction in their opposition to the appointment of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is that their worldview of what constitutes a good nominee is sharply at variance with that of the American public at large.
To the likes of Sens. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), Charles SchumerCharles SchumerFormer Gillibrand aide wins NY House primary Senate faces critical vote on Puerto Rico Juan Williams: GOP sounds the sirens over Trump MORE (D-N.Y.), Hillary ClintonHillary Rodham ClintonSanders wins concessions in Dem draft platform Dem draft platform a full repudiation of Trump Draft Dem platform rejects Keystone, calls for fossil fuel ‘phase down’ MORE (D-N.Y.) et al., the Supreme Court is a kind of super-Congress — nine special Senate seats — and the criterion for confirmation is agreement with the nominee on the key issues likely to come before the court. But to the American voters, the Supreme Court is above politics and ideology and confirmation should be awarded based on personal attributes such as integrity, intelligence, judgment, compassion, wisdom, maturity, fairness and temperament.
Realizing this difference in perspective between the Democratic base and the public at large, President Bush has done very well with both the John Roberts and the Alito appointments. When his people forgot about the dichotomy — and nominated Harriet Miers who was seen as a poorly qualified if conservative candidate — they got their heads handed to them.
Of course, ideology is as important (if not more so) to conservatives as it is to liberals. But with the White House comes the ability to get men or women who share your ideology approved as long as they are objectively well-qualified. Bill ClintonBill ClintonRubio: Clinton-Lynch meeting ‘raises all sorts of red flags’ WH defends Lynch's record after Clinton meeting GOP senator: Lynch should formally hand over Clinton probe MORE learned that lesson when the Senate easily approved his nominations of moderate liberal Stephen Breyer and ultraliberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Republicans then, as with Democrats now, could not rally public opposition to a judge simply based on his or her ideology.
The Robert Bork nomination failed, ultimately, not so much because he was a conservative but because his opponents managed to cast doubts on his temperament by engaging him in harsh rhetorical exchanges during his hearings. Clarence Thomas was not seriously opposed because of his conservatism but as a result of the allegations of Anita Hill that he sexually harassed her.
The failure of voters to understand the role of ideology in court decisions seems to fly in the face of the knee-jerk conservatism of Antonin Scalia, Thomas and, during his tenure, Rehnquist and the automatic liberalism of John Paul Stevens and Ginsburg. But voters are not deluded; they simply do not see Roe v. Wade in quite the apocalyptic terms that both the left and the right do. To the vast middle of the American political spectrum, it is more important that a Supreme Court nominee be a good person with sterling credentials than be predictably for or against Roe v. Wade.
But, in an even broader sense, voters are increasingly appalled at the growth of partisanship on Capitol Hill. Clinton’s impeachment and the GOP government closures of the 1990s have left their legacy in the growing public impatience with shrill, blind partisan advocacy in their elected Congress. Their insistence on credentials and personal qualifications in Supreme Court nominees reflects their desire not to see this unappealing trait spread to the Supreme Court.
Public OKs wiretapping
The Fox News poll of Jan. 11 confirms that the public stands solidly behind Bush’s policy of authorizing warrantless wiretaps by the National Security Agency of conversations between American citizens and people outside the United States.
By 58-32, voters supported the policy, and 60 percent of the public said that they would be willing, personally, to sacrifice some of their privacy to help national security.
The poll also found that Americans disagree with Osama bin Laden that we have avoided terrorist attacks simply because al Qaeda has not planned any raids. Forty-six percent say that it was because of our efforts at homeland security that we have not been hit in four and a half years. Only 22 percent said it was because no attacks were attempted. Twenty percent said both were responsible. And 60 percent want the Patriot Act to be renewed.
These survey findings underscore that Democrats attack Bush on his efforts to prevent domestic terror attacks at their own peril. The public dislikes Republicans because of their corruption scandals but appreciates their positions on homeland security. It differs with the Democrats over domestic anti-terror efforts but exempts them from its condemnation of congressional dishonesty. Each party should stay on its own turf and clean up the rest of its act.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of Condi vs. Hillary: The Next Great Presidential Race.