Comments on: Starr’s Oversight http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/ Harangues that just make sense Fri, 04 Jul 2008 20:31:11 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Andrew http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33298 Andrew Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:50:38 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33298 The full text of the book "Pursuit of Justices" by David Yalof is <a HREF="http://books.google.com/books?ie=UTF-8&vid=ISBN0226945464&id=LV-59wucEVkC&dq=reagan+and+o%27connor" rel="nofollow">available online</A>. It's pretty clear that Reagan tried to get at the truth before nominating O'Connor, but was prevented from doing so. Once the nomination was made, there was no turning back. The full text of the book “Pursuit of Justices” by David Yalof is available online. It’s pretty clear that Reagan tried to get at the truth before nominating O’Connor, but was prevented from doing so. Once the nomination was made, there was no turning back.

]]> By: steve http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33296 steve Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:46:09 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33296 <i>"It’s hard to imagine such an oversight like this having much effect in the age of the blogosphere. The oversight would have been corrected within days."</i> What makes you think it wasn't? O'Connor's 1970 abortion vote was disclosed during the confirmation fight. If you can even call it a "fight." The Biskupic book explains the state's anti-abortion leader outed her. Her GOP allies, whose number included Chief Justice Warren Burger, rallied to shore up the party flank: <blockquote>"72-year-old Barry Goldwater made the rounds of the Senate, leaning on a cane, to reassure the Republican troops. He told them that O'Connor 'epitomized the American ideal of a mother and wife.'"</blockquote> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/books/review/05bazelon.html?ex=1141275600&en=d8f573058e8af060&ei=5070 “It’s hard to imagine such an oversight like this having much effect in the age of the blogosphere. The oversight would have been corrected within days.”

What makes you think it wasn’t? O’Connor’s 1970 abortion vote was disclosed during the confirmation fight.

If you can even call it a “fight.”

The Biskupic book explains the state’s anti-abortion leader outed her. Her GOP allies, whose number included Chief Justice Warren Burger, rallied to shore up the party flank:

“72-year-old Barry Goldwater made the rounds of the Senate, leaning on a cane, to reassure the Republican troops. He told them that O’Connor ‘epitomized the American ideal of a mother and wife.’”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/books/review/05bazelon.html?ex=1141275600&en=d8f573058e8af060&ei=5070

]]> By: Doc Rampage http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33293 Doc Rampage Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:25:33 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33293 I was living in Arizona at the time of the O'Conner nomination, and I recall that her fondness for abortion was well-known and frequently discussed. It's hard to believe that the Washingtonians were unaware of it. I expect that Starr just left that stuff out to keep it out of the papers and to fool Republican voters who weren't paying much attention. The people making the decision knew exactly what they were getting. I was living in Arizona at the time of the O’Conner nomination, and I recall that her fondness for abortion was well-known and frequently discussed. It’s hard to believe that the Washingtonians were unaware of it. I expect that Starr just left that stuff out to keep it out of the papers and to fool Republican voters who weren’t paying much attention. The people making the decision knew exactly what they were getting.

]]> By: Consigliere http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33292 Consigliere Tue, 28 Feb 2006 22:17:27 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33292 Kenneth W. Starr was a gullible and slipshod investigator Twenty-five years later, things haven't changed much. <a href="http://adviceandconsent.blogspot.com/2006/02/who-is-responible-for-forged-morales.html" rel="nofollow"> Who Is Responible for the Forged Morales Declarations?</a> Kenneth W. Starr was a gullible and slipshod investigator

Twenty-five years later, things haven’t changed much.

Who Is Responible for the Forged Morales Declarations?

]]> By: Andrew http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33290 Andrew Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:37:01 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33290 James, there's no question that Reagan was charmed by O'Connor. But Reagan was also charmed by Tip O'Neill. That doesn't mean that Reagan would have appointed O'Neill as dogcatcher. The point is that Starr's Memo was sugarcoated, probably at the urging of people like William French Smith and Barry Goldwater, in order to help foist O'Connor on Reagan. Surely you don't think that Starr didn't know how to investigate someone. James, there’s no question that Reagan was charmed by O’Connor. But Reagan was also charmed by Tip O’Neill. That doesn’t mean that Reagan would have appointed O’Neill as dogcatcher.

The point is that Starr’s Memo was sugarcoated, probably at the urging of people like William French Smith and Barry Goldwater, in order to help foist O’Connor on Reagan. Surely you don’t think that Starr didn’t know how to investigate someone.

]]> By: James B. Shearer http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33289 James B. Shearer Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:12:19 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33289 Andrew, the idea that O'Connor was somehow forced on an unwilling Reagan is contrary to every account I have read about what happened. Andrew, the idea that O’Connor was somehow forced on an unwilling Reagan is contrary to every account I have read about what happened.

]]> By: Andrew http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33287 Andrew Tue, 28 Feb 2006 21:06:05 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33287 Well, maybe Starr will write his memoirs some day. As for Reagan, a top aide said: "One of the things he regretted most at the completion of his presidency in 1989, he told me, was that politics and circumstances had prevented him from making more progress in restoring protection for unborn human life." It seems that Senator Barry Goldwater insisted on O'Connor's nomination, just like Senator Warren Rudman insisted on Souter's nomination. Didn't you know? The Senate nominates, the president puts on a brave face, and then the Senate confirms. Well, maybe Starr will write his memoirs some day. As for Reagan, a top aide said: “One of the things he regretted most at the completion of his presidency in 1989, he told me, was that politics and circumstances had prevented him from making more progress in restoring protection for unborn human life.” It seems that Senator Barry Goldwater insisted on O’Connor’s nomination, just like Senator Warren Rudman insisted on Souter’s nomination. Didn’t you know? The Senate nominates, the president puts on a brave face, and then the Senate confirms.

]]> By: James B. Shearer http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33284 James B. Shearer Tue, 28 Feb 2006 19:48:44 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33284 I am not convinced this would have made a difference. Reagan liked O'Connor personally and was pretty set on nominating her after her interview with him no matter what his advisors preferred. I doubt Starr was encouraged to dig too deeply. I am not convinced this would have made a difference. Reagan liked O’Connor personally and was pretty set on nominating her after her interview with him no matter what his advisors preferred. I doubt Starr was encouraged to dig too deeply.

]]> By: Andrew http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33279 Andrew Tue, 28 Feb 2006 18:14:53 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33279 Kevin (comment #2), of course you're correct that there is a difference between wanting to liberalize abortion and supporting Roe. However, I don't know of anyone in the United States who supported the kind of radical liberalization of abortion law that O'Connor supported in 1970, who also supported overturning Roe v. Wade. Arizona's H.B. 20 (which O'Connor supported in 1970) would have legalized abortion on demand throughout pregnacy; i.e. it would have allowed abortion for any reason all the way up until birth. In contrast, California's Therapeutic Abortion Act signed by then-Governor Reagan in 1967 only allowed a physicians' committee to approve abortions in cases where there was substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the woman, and in cases of rape and incest; and abortions after 20 weeks gestation were flatly prohibited. Kevin (comment #2), of course you’re correct that there is a difference between wanting to liberalize abortion and supporting Roe. However, I don’t know of anyone in the United States who supported the kind of radical liberalization of abortion law that O’Connor supported in 1970, who also supported overturning Roe v. Wade.

Arizona’s H.B. 20 (which O’Connor supported in 1970) would have legalized abortion on demand throughout pregnacy; i.e. it would have allowed abortion for any reason all the way up until birth.

In contrast, California’s Therapeutic Abortion Act signed by then-Governor Reagan in 1967 only allowed a physicians’ committee to approve abortions in cases where there was substantial risk that continuance of the pregnancy would gravely impair the physical or mental health of the woman, and in cases of rape and incest; and abortions after 20 weeks gestation were flatly prohibited.

]]> By: Common Sense Junction » Blog Archive » Do Supreme Court Justices Lie? http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33277 Common Sense Junction » Blog Archive » Do Supreme Court Justices Lie? Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:36:16 +0000 http://patterico.com/2006/02/28/starrs-oversight/#comment-33277 [...] This is really good stuff from Confirm Them about book reviews at the New Republic, via Patterico’s Pontifications. [...] […] This is really good stuff from Confirm Them about book reviews at the New Republic, via Patterico’s Pontifications. […]

]]>