Post Politics Hour

washingtonpost.com's Daily Politics Discussion

Don't want to miss out on the latest buzz in politics? Start each day at wonk central: The Post Politics Hour. Join in each weekday morning at 11 a.m. as a member of The Washington Post's team of White House and Congressional reporters answers questions about the latest in buzz in Washington and The Post's coverage of political news.

Washington Post national political editor John F. Harris was online Thursday, Jan. 12, at 11 a.m. ET to discuss the latest in political news.

The transcript follows.

____________________

Conway, Ark.: So let me get this straight--of course the warrantless snooping is legal, says the Bush administration, because the program was vetted by executive branch lawyers, who exercised legal judgment independent of their client, we're supposed to believe. Meanwhile, down the street, we shouldn't put too much stock in things Sam Alito wrote in the 80s when he was a government lawyer in the Reagan administration, because he was just doing his client's bidding.

Which is it?

John F. Harris: Good morning. I'm filling in for Mike Fletcher, one of our White House correspondents, who is on the road with President Bush. I like your question, even if it is perhaps a bit argumentative. I'll e-mail it on to him and see if he can get an answer from the White House.

_______________________

Astoria, N.Y.: I have a problem with the pro-life crowd. It seems they deplore judicial activism as they believe (rightly so) that the courts made abortion legal. However, since a majority of the population believes that abortion should be legal now, wouldn't it take judicial activism to make abortion illegal? It seems a bit hypocritical to me. Let's put it to a vote, and, as every poll shows, abortion would remain legal. It seems the pro-life crowd's only hope for making abortion illegal is judicial activism. Is my logic right, here? Thanks.

John F. Harris: I think your logic is probably wrong. Abortion rights, as I understand the polling, is a majority position in the country as a whole, but it is by no means a majority position in all states. If there was not a national right to abortion under Roe v. Wade, it seems reasonable to expect that a large number of state legislatures would impose new restrictions on the procedure.

Your general point rings true to me. Most people regardless of where they fall on the ideological spectrum deplore judicial activism when it produces results they don't like, but see wise interpretation of the Constitution when it produces results they do like.

_______________________

I like your question, even if it is perhaps a bit argumentative: You people in D.C. don't like argument? Isn't that why we have courts, legislatures, and public discourse?

Did I wake up in the old Soviet Union this morning?

Thanks.

Anchorage, Alaska

John F. Harris: Don't get huffy with me Anchorage. I do indeed like argument and argumentative questions.

_______________________

Silver Spring, Md.: The Alito hearings have been interesting enough, I suppose, if one doesn't mind considerable senatorial bloviation, but I do think that the stakes are clear enough. We have been through this dance before, and we ought to realize that Alito will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade at the earliest opportunity. At this point, the issue can not be only a judges qualifications, but whether or not the senators are be willing to risk that decision. I think that they have a principled enough stand to say that, in order to protect women's rights, they are obligated to keep him off the court. Your thoughts?

John F. Harris: I think you have framed the issue in a pretty clear-eyed way.

We do not know for sure how Alito would vote on Roe v. Wade, but I can certainly understand why abortion rights supporters would not want him on the court given his previously expressed views. The fact is there is not really a prevailing understanding of what the reasonable grounds are for senators to vote no on a nominee. I think many Democrats would accept your interpretation--it's enough for senators to vote no because they don't agree with the nominee's ideology. But Republicans are right to point out that this was not previously the standard--as witnessed by nearly unanimous votes for Bill Clinton's two nominees. Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a long record of statements that conservatives found objectionable, but most Republicans supported her because her credentials seemed sound.

This confusion over what the standard is--qualifications or ideology--really hangs over judicial nominations these days.

_______________________

Hope Mills, N.C.: Regarding Alito's wife leaving the hearing in tears yesterday. Why are the Supreme Court's nominees spouses even there? If I have a job interview, my wife doesn't come and sit behind me. Is the purpose of them being there and attempt to soften the questioning?

John F. Harris: see the next question, too.

_______________________

Fla.: John, I don't know your age so forgive me if this presumes too much: how have the Senate judiciary committee Supreme Court confirmation hearings changed over the years? Has it always been that the families accompany the nominee and stay with him during the interrogation?

Wouldn't it make more sense for families to be introduced, for the senate to be polite and on their best behavior for a couple of hours and then for the family members to be kindly escorted to the green room (or wherever) while the nominee is grilled?

I mean, no disrespect to Mrs. Alito, but these are not kindergarten games where everyone is expected to play nicely (it would be nice if people like blowhard Kennedy and self-important Biden would balance their hot air with some professionalism and questions that might actually shed some light on Mr. Alito's judicial philosophy, history, relevant activities and if possible: future endeavors if appointed to the court. Give me Dianne Feinstein over those egotistical males of either party any day of the week, please!).

Anyway, you get my gist, yes?

John F. Harris: I do get your gist, which seems to be similar to that of the other poster.

I don't have deep understanding of previous nomination hearings but this is not due to my age (42) but the fact that I've never covered one first hand.

It is striking the amount of skeptical and even mocking coverage some of the Democratic senators in particular are getting for what has struck many viewers as grand-standing and long-windedness...But these are not unfamiliar traits in political life.

Probably lots of people felt sorry for Mrs. Alito, and I'm sympathetic, too. But I agree that the senators' rights and responsibilities to ask what they think is important must trump concern for her feelings.

_______________________

Republicans are right to point out : Oh please. It's on record that Ginsberg was a compromise candidate on a list which was provided by Republican Senators to Clinton, in exchange for having a couple of preferred Clinton candidates torpedoed for...yes, that's right...ideological reasons.

Do any of you bother reporting facts anymore? Never mind, I'm sure you want to get back to the Constitutionally critical issue of who made Alito's wife cry.

John F. Harris: I just think you are wrong on the history of this...Ginsburg may have been seen as a consensus candidate of sorts, but she had political views from her time at the ACLU that clearly many Republicans were not enthusiastic about.

(Clinton picked her after they hit it off in an interview and after some earlier possibilities--such as Mario Cuomo--told him they weren't interested or were scratched for various political reasons.)

The same is true from the other direction. Scalia was overwhelmingly confirmed by a Democratic senate.

Both these nominations reflected one way of thinking--the Senate is there primarily to assess judicial qualifications and temperament not the philosophical leanings of the nominee.

I'm not saying that the standard Democrats now invoke--that philosophy is certainly one of the things they can weigh--is right or wrong, just that it's a change from some previous episodes.

There's no mystery why the standards have changed...This is a critically important vacancy that Alito will fill, one that will affect the direction of a court that is very narrowly divided on many of the most important questions in American life.

_______________________

Baltimore, Md.: After the Roberts' hearing there was widespread commentary on Senators' tendency to spend most of their "question time" on self-serving speeches. There were great questions suggested by legal experts and political pundits that the Senators could use. So, why, are they continuing to use their question time as speech time and not ask the perfectly framed questions provided by both sides of the aisle via pundits and legal experts?

John F. Harris: You ask too much when you ask a senator not to make a speech when given national television time.

_______________________

Lake Forest, Calif.: Good morning. I love this chat. It has become part of my daily routine. My question is, why does it sometimes take so long between questioned asked and answered in this chat? Do you have to wait for questions, have technical difficulties or are you also doing your other work while chatting?

John F. Harris: Thanks for checking in to our chats. Some reporters are a lot faster at taking questions than I am. I tend to be a sloppy typist, so I try to clean up answers before clicking the "post reply" button. And I also will sometimes look up stories that questioners refer to in the hope that I don't say something dumb. This does not prevent me from saying something dumb with some frequency.

_______________________

Vienna, Va.: To the Liberal from Astoria: Liberal judicial activism is wrong because it is not founded on Constitutional principles (except for distortions of those principles). Conservative judicial "activism" is more restorationist than activist--because it returns to founding Constitutional principles. The conservative brand should actually be called "judicial restoration" with the fundamental Constitutional goal of judicial restraint.

John F. Harris: I'll post this in the interests of debate, though I don't really have a comment.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Wow - I'm a left-leaner, but I wholeheartedly agree with Senator Biden's suggestion to scrap this nomination process - if Roberts, Alito, etc. aren't going to be forthright in answering legitimate questions, why waste the time? I'd rather see the time used to hold hearings on the NSA domestic spying.

Any thoughts on this change of nomination process suggestion?

John F. Harris: I don't know whether the process should be scrapped but I do believe there is quite a lot of artifice in these hearings. Nominees have to pretend like they do not have strong pre-existing views on subjects on which it is obvious they do. And senators sometimes feel like they have to trip up nominees they oppose on tangential issues since they can't go after them on the main question: What do you really think and how will you vote?

_______________________

Raleigh, N.C.: Sen. Kennedy grilled Judge Alito about his membership in the P.A.C., yet Senator Kennedy himself belonged to the "Owl Club" at Harvard which didn't allow women.

Shouldn't this hypocrisy be pointed out?

John F. Harris: I'll let you point it out...while also pointing out that I don't know if you are right or even whether there is such a thing as the Owl Club.

_______________________

Baton Rouge, La.: If you do some research, you'll find that Orrin Hatch recommended Ginsberg to Clinton.

John F. Harris: I think that's right...But I'm quite certain this was not the decisive factor in her nomination. You'll recall that Democrats controlled the Senate in 1993, when Clinton nominated her.

_______________________

To the Conservative from Vienna: Tell that to John Marshall.

John F. Harris: You guys may need to step outside and settle this.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You wrote: "I'm not saying that the standard Democrats now invoke--that philosophy is certainly one of the things they can weigh--is right or wrong, just that it's a change from some previous episodes."

It's also consistent with the standard Republicans and conservative groups used to torpedo Harriet Myers.

John F. Harris: Yep, I agree with this.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: Hello and thank you for taking questions. I graduated with high honors from the University of Michigan in 1975. At the same time that Justice Roberts and Mr. Alito were off on what seems pretty assured career paths, I was confronted in job interviews with employers who said "We just don't hire girls for those jobs." The jobs in question were on the sales and management track. There was nothing illegal about this or any of the harassment I and many others faced. Perseverance and artful avoidance helped me in what ended up a reasonably successful career in banking and brokerage. I think the court will be losing a link to this past reality when Justice O'Connor is gone. Any thoughts?

John F. Harris: Well, I'm glad this era of casual discrimination is receding. There will probably be considerable pressure to nominate another woman to the court--as Bush originally tried to do with Miers--when the next vacancy occurs.

_______________________

Kansas City, Mo.: As a Democrat I don't think they are helping themselves with the hearings. I just wish this anger and concern by Senators had been raised in the Senate in January 2001 when it mattered.

Senate Democrats didn't challenge the results then so this is the result. It's a little late to complain about the types of judges being appointed, everyone knew this would happen if Bush got into office.

John F. Harris: I heard recently from an associate of former president Bill Clinton, who reported that he has been saying something like this: If we don't like Bush's judicial nominations, we should maybe try winning some presidential elections.

Like most presidents, he does believe in the general presumption that presidents should receive deference on their nominees...though he would also surely point out that many of his lower court nominees did not receive such deference from the Republican Senate majority, which quashed many of the people he sent up.

_______________________

South Burlington, Vt.: I guess I'm a little frustrated by coverage of these hearings in which the Democrats are always portrayed as egomaniacal windbags. Just a thought but I'm betting some people have similar impressions of the other side. By the way, during the Clinton administration, Republicans were given the courtesy of suggesting potential nominees before they were announced and my understanding is that both Breyer and Ginsburg were okayed by Republicans on the committee before the process ever started. To say that "Ruth Bader Ginsburg had a long record of statements that Republicans found objectionable but most Republicans supported her because her credentials seemed sound" rings hollow to me. Had Clinton paid so little respect to the other side, good chance she'd have received far fewer votes.

John F. Harris: Windbaggery is bipartisan, in my experience.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: RE: Owl Club- Ted Kennedy may be old, but I don't think he's old enough to have been a member of Harvard's Owl Club. According to this article, "George Washington and John Adams founded the Owl Club in 1745, before it was founded again in 1896 as the Phi Delta Psi fraternity at Harvard."

The Harvard Independent

Nice try, though. At least now we know that there was such a thing as the Owl Club.

John F. Harris: hmm.

_______________________

Reston, Va.: Mr. Harris,

I find your responses argumentative and your facts (Ginsburg) for example to be way off.

John F. Harris: Okay, not my intent to be argumentative, but I'll post your view.

_______________________

Northfield, Minn.: So word on the street is you're working on a new book? How is it coming? When can we find it in stores?

John F. Harris: This is true. I am writing a book, with co-author Mark Halperin of ABC News, on the challenges of political strategy in an age of intense polarization in the electorate. It is due to be published in the fall.

In the meantime, I would remind you of washingtonpost.com's strict policy against posting questions or comments from a locale where you are not actually located at the time you click send.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: An observation heretofore under-reported: Alito is not dodging with nearly the same grace as Roberts did. He sounds, in my opinion, like he's blocking, whereas Roberts made you feel like you had received an answer even when you hadn't. Frankly, I am not impressed.

Also, I think senators should be allowed to question Alito as long as they'd like until they receive answers. I don't understand why the hearings have to be so rushed. If the longer he stalled answering, the longer the hearings were, you wouldn't have this problem of non-answers. It seems a perfectly reasonable solution. Why do the hearings have to be a mere week?

John F. Harris: I have not heard great popular clamor for longer hearings. But you raise a fair point about these hearings. The trick for nominees is to be as artful and articulate as possible in not answering.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: "This confusion over what the standard is--qualifications or ideology--really hangs over judicial nominations these days."

I respectfully disagree. The first standard is qualifications, as witnessed by Mr. Bush's last failed nomination. The remaining and unanswered questions are whether or not ideology should be considered and, if so, to what degree.

John F. Harris: Here's a good question to end on. Many of those sending questions or comments have more interesting thoughts on judicial nominations than I do. I enjoyed playing moderator and am sorry we did not get to more. Please check in tomorrow when I'm sure there will be lots more on this subject.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.