Bush and C. Boyden Gray Pass Up Opportunity to Defend DeLay

By DHinMI

Further evidence that Tom DeLay isn't having a very good day week month year:

After DeLay Remarks, Bush Said He Supports "Independent Judiciary"

President Bush appeared to distance himself on Friday from recent comments by the House Republican leader, Representative Tom DeLay, that Congress should crack down on unaccountable judges.

Asked in a conversation with reporters about statements by Mr. DeLay that judges were out of control and should be held accountable, the president said: "I believe in an independent judiciary. I believe in proper checks and balances. And we'll continue to put judges on the bench who strictly and faithfully interpret the Constitution."...

Dan Allen, a spokesman for Mr. DeLay, said the lawmaker's views were consistent with the president's statement. "Congressman DeLay as well as House Republicans have made it clear that Congress has a role to play here to ensure there are checks and balances and the judiciary doesn't run amok," Mr. Allen said.

Democrats called the president's statement a contradiction of Mr. DeLay's...

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, praised Mr. Bush as "distancing himself from the current Republican rhetoric on retaliation against judges."...

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, praised Mr. Bush's support for "an independent judiciary," then called on him to ask Senate Republicans to drop their threats to change the rules.

"The threat to change Senate rules is a raw abuse of power and will destroy the very checks and balances our founding fathers put in place to prevent absolute power by any one branch of government," Mr. Reid said.

But C. Boyden Gray, chairman of the Committee for Justice and chief conservative strategist in the confirmation battles, said it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who had threatened the balance of powers by using the filibuster to block judicial nominees...

As for Mr. DeLay's comments, Mr. Gray said the House majority leader had no role in judicial confirmations, which take place in the Senate. He noted that Mr. DeLay's ire was directed primarily at the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit for failing to order the re-insertion of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube despite a measure passed by Congress that was intended to do that.

"I have not heard any senator, including the majority leader, attacking the 11th Circuit," Mr. Gray said.

I can remember some times that DeLay openly contradicted and even smacked down the President, but the President and C. Boyden Gray both distancing themselves from Tom DeLay is extraordinary.  Yes, Bush essentially reiterated his position about appointing strict constructionalists to the bench.  But by not defending DeLay, Bush allowed the Democrats to claim that he was admonishing DeLay.   Unless Bush defends DeLay--thereby opening himself up to charges that he is also meddling in the judiciary and abusing his power--then DeLay was just hung out to dry by the President. 

With the Democrats threatening to shut down the Senate over the filibuster and DeLay getting abandoned by both the President and a de-facto spokesman for the Senate over his statements concerning the judiciary, it's hard to imagine there's going to be eager and easy cooperation if the White House  needs to craft a compromise between the two chambers of Congress.

Comments

[Kagro X]

Who's C. Boyden Gray?

This struck me as part of the understood plan: that DeLay would take the lead as anti-judiciary hatchet man, while the Senate and the President claimed to support an independent judiciary, and various spokespeople would be dispatched to remind everyone that DeLay and the House don't have a role in judicial nominations.

Although I wonder how much more heat DeLay can withstand, this heat is different in kind. And in fact, it's the very kind of heat for which his House Republican Conference still loves him. They love that he's a lightning rod, just so long as there's still room to distance themselves from him and look like moderates by comparison, but still get a taste of that fundamentalist base money he brings in, via his leadership PACs.

The ethics heat is harder to live with, because they have to take an active role in protecting him from it.

Anyway, how about that careful construction from that C. Boyden Gray guy (whoever he is)? Putting on my strict constructionist hat, I note that we must not be meant to take more away from that than the fact that the judges Senator Cornyn threatened were not on the 11th Circuit.

[DemFromCT]

OTOH, add in the distancing from SS compromises being floated in the press (see link and quote: "Several officials familiar with the discussions among GOP leaders said the lawmakers are wary of creating the impression they are jettisoning the centerpiece of Bush's plan.") and the distancing in CO by repubs of Bush's fascist town meeting style (excluded out by bumper sticker ideology) and one gets the impression that the GOP feels a need to do some public distancing.

Real or phoney, that's still a bit of a change. As the quote indicates, their mo is to look and act like the Borg when it comes to leadership when they can (excepting Kagro's lightning rod description, which applies as much as anyone to Hastert - and the question is how much is he getting shocked by the continued lightning strikes).

[Sara]

C. Boyden Gray was WH legal counsel to Bush One, and a player in the Reagan White House years in the VP office. He is also one of the founders of the Federalist Society, and played a major role in the legal strategy against Clinton back in the Lewinsky Era. Very close to Ken Starr and Scolia.

He also was one of the lead attorneys in Bush v. Gore.

[Kagro X]

Kidding, Sara. I knew this would happen!

But it's also a good way identify readers ripe for a highly targeted pitch for my own C. Boyden Gray piece.

Ha, a marketing ploy!

On a completely different note, this should also demonstrate the need for and great value of message repetition, as annoying as it is. That C. Boyden Gray story was perhaps the most read item we've had here, and still even our regular readers may have missed it.

[Mike in MI]

WHen DeLay gets back from his trip to the Vatican (in order to take in a bit of that pervasive Pope Mojo), I'd love to see some enterprising reporter ask him for the record:

"Congressman, but for your trip to Rome to see the Pope buried, you would have been a keynote speaker at a conference of the JCCCR, where Herb Titus clearly indicated that it is the avowed purpose of the group to make sure that they act to elect governors and a president who will, in accordance with his interpretion of the Constitution, refuse to enforce judicial orders that the executive finds to be unconstitutional. Do you agree that the exective has the power to independently determine the constitutionality of judicial decisions and enforce only those he finds to fit within his or her understanding of constitutionality?

Mr. Titus also said that we are being ruled by terrorist judges. Do you also believe that American judges--many of whom were appointed by Republicans--are terrorists?