Reason #2: Huckabee Will Fight For Good Judges
By Anteater Posted in 2008 — Comments (28) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I continue my march towards establishing 7 good reasons to vote for Mike Huckabee. In my first reason, I argued that Huckabee is the only major candidate who can be trusted on the issue of abortion. Today, I will touch upon another very important reason: judges.
Reason #2: Huckabee Will Fight For Good Judges.
I will make a two-fold argument based upon a simple political equation:
SCOTUS Victory = Building a Republican Majority + Appointing Good Judges
In order for a President to be able to push through a good judge, he must first create a Republican majority in the Senate. The Democrats have proven time after time that they will stonewall any good strict constructionist judges that come their way. Bush was wise enough to understand this political reality, and thus he campaigned very hard in 2002 and 2004 to build a Republican majority in the Senate. Out on the campaign trail, Bush constantly hammered the Democrats on their refusal to give his nominees an up-or-down vote. Hindsight tells us that Bush's fierce campaigning eventually paid off, and the Senate Republicans were in a good position by the time that the SCOTUS vacancies came.
Who among our candidates are good campaigners who are willing to hammer Democrats on the issue of judges out on the campaign trail? We can scratch off Fred Thompson from the list; although I believe that Fred will nominate good judges, I think that he is unable to exert the tremendous political energy required to rebuild a Republican majority in the Senate. How about John McCain? From his involvement with the Gang of 14, I get the impression that he is willing to compromise with Democrats on the issue of judges, and I am not sure that he has the vigor to fight the Democrats and rebuild the Senate either. Scratch off McCain too.
After building the Republican majority, the next crucial ingredient is actually appointing good judges. This next step is where Rudy Giuliani is unreliable, since he believes that a strict constructionist could be pro-Roe. Also, it has been reported that Rudy does not have such a great record on judges. How about Mitt Romney? Like Rudy, Mitt appointed liberal judges in his state, and thus Mitt Romney is unreliable as well. Here is an interesting perspective from a guy who claims to have been the first one to oppose the Harriet Miers nomination:
Although the ACU and CPAC honored me with the Ronald Reagan Award in 2006, in large part for what I began that morning, I would not like any of us to have to oppose a Republican president's Supreme Court nomination again.
For this reason the choice between Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney is an easy one for me.
Mitt Romney's record in Massachusetts on judicial nominations is abysmal. His conduct was either an abdication of duty or a complete disregard of the importance of a governor's role in that state's nominations process. By contrast, Governor Huckabee not only left the Arkansas judiciary better than he found it, but he also vigorously supported the President's Arkansas nominees to the federal bench. Excellent nominees, like Leon Holmes who Democrats obstructed for years. As soon as Holmes was confirmed, colleagues elected him Chief Judge.
Which candidate can best deliver both parts of the political equation above? We need a brilliant communicator who can shine a bright spotlight on the Democrats' obstruction of judges. We need an indefatigable and savvy politician who is willing to expend energy to rebuild the Republican Senate majority in the coming years. We need a candidate who will appoint good judges in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. We need an individual who is unwavering in his core conservative convictions. Such an individual will be less likely to to fold under intense Democratic pressure when the big SCOTUS battles come. Among all the major candidates, only Mike Huckabee fits this description.
...then, by definition, he is the one who best unites the Republican party. There's a reason why Huckabee is a frontrunner right now.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
If independants weren't involved in the nominating process. And, I surely cannot agree that his very weak front runner status shows that he is uniting the party.
the reason the party is fractured is because we have 4 to 5 very good candidates -- ALL OF WHOM WOULD MAKE EXCELLENT PRESIDENTS. When the primary dust settles, the party will come together behind ONE candidate, and all those who CLAIM that they will NEVER vote for __________, will unite behind the candidate who opposes Hillary and/or Obama!
I no not agree that Huckabee would make an excellent president. I beleive he will govern from the center, if not the left-center. The things he espouses such as the Fair Tax, HLA, and FMA will go nowhere. He'll be JimmyII.
I am sure it will be as good as it was on taxes for the Arkansans
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
And if so, is it for the same reason he changed his mind on the Cuba embargo?
If not, I don't think he'd know a good judge if Clarence Thomas slapped an opinion on his face..
...that he actually supported the thought process behind Lawrence. Mike is definitely against the Lawrence ruling, see here:
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/mikeks/2007/dec/20/romney_appointed_libera...
1. The Huckster has absolutely no history of fighting Democrats at any time, for anything.
2. His judicial philosophy is second in ignorance only to his knowledge of foreign affairs.
3. His outspoken advocacy of FMA & HLA (which version, BTW?) will ignite the opposition and the Dems. No conservative judge will get a floor vote.
4. If he does manage to get the nomination, you're looking at something on the order of 40% to 43% of the popular vote and a complete blow out in the Senate for the Ds, so all this is simply mental masturbation.
5. You can kiss off overturning Roe, passing either of the amendments or reducing/eliminating abortion for another generation. The next 20MM butchered babies will be at Hucks feet.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
1. The Huckster has absolutely no history of fighting Democrats at any time, for anything.
This is false. Huckabee has fought against Democrats on tax cuts and spending, earning the praise of the Heritage Foundation.
2. His judicial philosophy is second in ignorance only to his knowledge of foreign affairs.
This is disparaging. Mike was right on Pakistan.
3. His outspoken advocacy of FMA & HLA (which version, BTW?) will ignite the opposition and the Dems. No conservative judge will get a floor vote.
The issue of gay marriage actually energizes Republicans (see 2004 elections). Conservative judges will get a vote if we rebuild the Senate majority.
4. If he does manage to get the nomination, you're looking at something on the order of 40% to 43% of the popular vote and a complete blow out in the Senate for the Ds.
Actually I think it will Huck will win convincingly, in Reaganesque fashion.
5. You can kiss off overturning Roe, passing either of the amendments or reducing/eliminating abortion for another generation. The next 20MM butchered babies will be at Hucks feet.
Not if Huck wins. The entire point of this blog was to argue that Huckabee will fight for good judges like no other candidate.
is kool aid drenched horse pucky.
Huck fought Dems on taxes and spending and quite obviously lost. The guy is a liberal to the core.
There is no way Pastor Pinhead gets a R Senate majority because he gets blown out in the general.
The idea of a Huckpucky administration makes me long for the good old days of Carter. The guy is a fool of the first order.
BTW, I hear Huckpucky announced that John Bolton was on his FP advisory team. When asked about it, Bolton said, "Huh?". Your boy is barely ready for Arkansas, let alone DC.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Numerous objective polls contradict you. McCain and Huckabee are the most electable in the general election.
Dean & Kerry.
Electability polls are the ultimate in meaningless crap at this point in the contest. The candidates haven't squares off and the few folks who are paying attention aren't paying attention to the difference between the R & D.
Heck, if people were actually paying attention, Huck would just be bad memory.
You want to cook up some formula that has him pulling Indie and conservative D votes without bothering to notice that Is are fiscal conservatives and socially liberal and Ds will vote for a "real" D if push comes to shove. You guys are in serious denial to the real detriment of the Party based on a a slick talking small time fool who's promoting nice (to you) soundng programs that have no chance in hell of getting a floor vote let alone getting passed.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
it is that Huck will 1. nominate good judges and 2. he will campaign for a stronger Republican majority.
My counter would be:
1. Let's grant that he would do this, though his history on pardons and commutations makes me believe that he is willing to compromise his standards in legal areas based on contributors or other behind-doors factors.
2. Campaigning for a stronger majority has to be based on a unifying principle. The unifying principle is not going to be a socially liberal, but fiscally "moderate" or expansionist position that Huckabee espouses. When did we expand Republican representation in the Senate and House? It was when the movement took a decidedly conservative (in all of its senses) and espoused those ideas to the electorate.
Your argument against Fred is a lack of energy which is demonstratively wrong. And Fred has a governing philosophy that can be used to unite conservatives.
I have seen the lists of lawyers supporting Giuliani, Romney, and Thompson. While I have not been able to find the list for McCain, I see references to his lawyers committee, so I know one exists. Is there any type of lawyers committee for Governor Huckabee? (I could not find one on his site, but that is as likely to be my inefficiency on the computer as anything else.)
Who he has listed there would seem to indicate the lawyers advising him and thus might give some insight into the judges he would pick. Any leads?
...who live in the real world and do not take as face-value-honesty every word that comes out of a politician's mouth have to go by?
and I have a number of criticisms of Huckabee, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. I don't think any one questions his pro-life credentials. Absent any evidence indicating the contrary, I believe Huckabee's pro-life instincts would strongly incline him to be good on judges. As we learned with Reagan and Bush I, it's virtually impossible to know how the judges are going to turn out ahead of time.
Per Jeff's response, I'm not sure one could come up with much proof in this regard other than looking at the judges Huckabee supported in Arkansas. Has anyone looked into that in any detail?
You largely have to go with your gut on this so it's certainly not much to hang your hat on. I just think there are more obvious and effective arguments against Huckabee than what he's likely to do on judges. The guy has many flaws, I'm just not convinced this is one of them.
What I am trying to do is point out how ridiculous it is for candidate shills (Anteater, I'm looking at you, though you're nowhere near the only one) to contend that candidates "want" to do something, "believe" something, or "will" do something when the only evidence of that is the candidate's promises and platitudes and that shill's wish to believe. Memo to any who are not in the real world yet: candidates tell you what you want to hear. Without actions -- and, for you Romney folks, that means consistent actions over an extended period of time --those words are useless and meaningless, except as fodder for desperately-want-to-believe-ers to reinforce their belief in, well, that which they desperately want to believe.
but I don't know if I'd go so far as to say that all candidate promises are useless or meaningless. Your criteria of "consistent actions over an extended period of time" is certainly a safe and reasonable one, but I'm not sure it's entirely realistic. Sure, it would be great if all the candidates had clear, long-term records of conservative dedication, but the only one I can think of who meets that threshold is Thompson, and even there I wouldn't say he's perfect.
By your criteria, only lifelong politicians would be worthy of our support. I kind of like the idea of people who haven't spent a life in politics still being worthy of at least our consideration. I don't think its wise, or fair, to simply dismiss them out of hand if they don't have a long track record.
And if you're wondering, yes, I am a Romney guy.
who has never been in public office but decides to run for office demonstrate an extended period of time as a conservative?
Sure, it's always nice to have a long track-record, but that isn't always going to be the case. Similarly, it's something one can reasonably desire in a candidate, but it ain't dispositive.
And you think he could pull it together after taking office. If, and that's a big if, he can pull a majority together, it will be by reaching accross the aisle to the Dems. That's where he belongs anyway. But, that reaching won't get us good judges.