Redstate

So Senators Craig (R-ID) and Chambliss (R-GA) are off the committee and Senators Cobrun (R-OK) and Brownback (R-KS) are on the committee.  I'll admit ignorance on my part about Craig and Cambliss' stance on issues.  However, Coburn and Brownback are two of the most conservative members of this august house, and even more conservative on social issues such as abortion.  I'll admit that I'm a social moderate, but if there is one place that I'd want to see the social conservatives it is the judiciary committee.  Whoa.  Senator Trainwreck, welcome to judiciary committee.

Specter v. Coburn, Jan 2nd. pay per view. $39.95! Oh gosh will this be fun.

I though McCain was the chairman of the Commerce Committee...I heard that bit last week in the context of his threats toward steroid use in Major League Baseball. Did McCain get shafted or did I just hear that wrong?

He's been chairman for a while (at least since before the Jeffords incident), he could have hit the 6 year term limit for committee chairs in the Republican caucus.  That is why Spectre got the chairmanship of Judiciary from Hatch who is more senior.

But what is your rationale for that?  I would think if you were a social moderate you would want social conservatives on committees like banking where the social/fiscal difference was moot, and on the judiciary you would want social moderates.

My preference for judges is for ones that will not make law from the bench.  For example, I support most gay rights initiatives, but I don't want a judiciary to impose those rights.  I support a higher level of environmentalism than the Bush administration, but I don't want judges imposing it.  And on and on.  Furthermore, I think Roe v. Wade is a flawed ruling (regardless of my view on the legality of abortion) and should be overruled or at least curtailed.  These two will definitely side with me on that one.

The replacement of Sen. Larry Craig- Idaho and Sen. Saxby Chambliss- Georgia with Sen. Sam Brownback- Kansas and Sen. Tom Coburn- Oklahoma is indeed good news.  Strengthens the conservative voice in the committee.

Sen. Bill Frist- Tennessee must to go one-step further.  Senate structure, rules, committee size, staff assignments and most importantly funding need to be addressed to reflect the composition of the 109th Congress and the new GOP majority.

Using the Judiciary Committee as a guide:

Current committee size:  19

Proposed GOP members:  10

Proposed DEM members:  8

Proposed committee size:  18

The Dems essentially refused to fill the vacant seat of Sen. John Edwards- North Carolina.

Revised committee size:  17

Revised GOP members:  10

Revised DEM members:  7

Historically, `To the Victors Goes the Spoils'.  This has precedent in the US Senate.

If  Sen. Harry Reid- Nevada wants to play hardball...?

One of these days we really need to explore this whole "constructionist-activist" nonsense and really think about what it means.

Until then, I would caution you to be careful about the social conservative-"constructionist" connection.  Just as federalism looks less appealing when your party has all the majorities, I think this denigrating of the judiciary will change over time as appointments pile up.  I think your belief in a limited judiciary is merely an ally of convenience for social conservatism.  

I'm not a social conservative, I'm a moderate.  I still support federalism despite Republicans being in control of D.C.  I think Oregon should be allowed to have death-in-dignity laws, California should be allowed to have medicinal marajuana, and D.C. should be allowed to regulate guns in their city.

Maybe there are conservatives who use federalism and constructionism as smokescreens, but to me they are ends unto themselves.  I support gay rights, but I want legislatures to vote them into the law.  I don't want them imposed by the judiciary.  Similarly, I hope one day there will be no racial discrimination, but I don't want the Supreme Court to knock down affirmative action laws.  I want states to follow California's lead and get rid of them through their elected representatives or direct votes.

Liberals generally care about only the results (whether abortion is legal, gays are marrying, etc), while conservatives care about how you get to the results as well.  (These are vast overgeneralizations, I know.

I don't want justices who would rule that an unborn child has a right to life and thus abortion is always illegal.  I don't want justices who would rule that an unborn child has no right to life and thus it is a matter solely for the mother to decide.  I don't want conservative or liberal judges.  I want a judge who reads the Constitution and is humble enough to say "The Constiution does not address abortion, it is up to the elected representatives of the states to decide how to proceed on this issue."  That is a constructionist.  How that got conflated with conservative, I'm not sure.  But my guess is that anyone who is not liberal is automatically conservative in the media's eyes.

I didn't mean to imply you were a social con, Doverspa.  I don't question you support federalism, but I can't help but wonder about your brethren.

Interestingly, I don't really get lathered about the concept and will not oppose conservative policies on federalist principles, other than to point out conservatism's previous positions to the contrary.

I wouldn't give any more credit to conservatives than liberals about defending the process for the sake of the process.  Both sides fight with the weapons they have available to them.  Conservative jurists during the New Deal fought very, very hard against legislatively enacted programs.  It still happens today.  See Lopez.    

I'll take Tom Coburn over Pat Leahy or Ted Kennedy any old day.  Tom Coburn can be an absolute wild man; Leahy should expect to get flummoxed by Coburn on a regular basis.

Forgive my ignorance, but shouldn't we have picked up a seat on the committee?  With 55 Republican senators now, I think we should have.  From this post and comments, it looks like two Republican senators were swapped.  This hardly seems fair given the new composition of the Senate.  Please someone set me straight...

My understanding is that the Republicans are staying put while Democrats shed a spot on judiciary.  So it goes 10-8 instead of 10-9.  Other committees are doing similar mathematical tweaking.  Anyone with more info, please divulge.