That’s the dilemma Republicans in the U.S. Senate face when it comes to President Obama’s latest Supreme Court nominee. Byron York dissects the situation for the Washington Examiner.
York highlights a couple of positive statements supporting the qualifications of nominee Elena Kagan. The sources of those statements? Former Whitewater special counsel Kenneth Starr and conservative jurist Miguel Estrada.
Today, the conservative expressions of support for Kagan have disappointed a number of Republicans who want a shootout over the nomination. They fully expect Democrats to cite that support (“Even Ken Starr says …”) over and over again during Kagan’s confirmation hearings.
But the bigger problem conservatives see is that the pro-Kagan statements put Republicans at a disadvantage before the confirmation even begins. “What Miguel and Ken are trying to demonstrate is that the president deserves to have his nominees confirmed as long as they are qualified,” says one GOP Senate aide. “The problem is the Democrats don’t do that, and so you unilaterally disarm.”
Indeed, among Republicans “unilateral disarmament” has become shorthand for the divide between two competing ways of approaching the Kagan nomination. “This debate is the people who have a traditional way of looking at these procedural questions — ‘This is the way it’s been done and this is the way to do it’ — versus the people who say the Democrats have changed the rules and we should respond in kind,” the aide says.
