Las Vegas Sun

April 19, 2015

Currently: 86° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

Jon Ralston:

Senators’ public spat can’t be won by Reid

Harry Reid doesn’t lose very often.

I speak not of policy debates, where the byzantine practices of the Club of 100 cannot always be navigated. But when it comes to political games — when he is not playing meddler-in-chief in races that are not his own — Reid almost always wins.

But on the Elissa Cadish nomination to the federal bench, the Senate majority leader is going to lose, unless he is a magician of such Copperfieldian skills that he can commit an act of prestidigitation that would be miraculous even for him.

This story is truly an extraordinary one, as you have the nearly unprecedented public conflict between two senators from the same state over a judicial nomination. This is where collegiality almost always trumps partisanship — and if differences cannot be reconciled, they are settled privately.

But since Sen. Dean Heller informed Reid late last month that he would not support Cadish, and word of his maneuver became public , this has become a very public chess game. Ordinarily, I’d say this is Bobby Fischer vs. Bart Simpson. But Reid simply does not have the pieces to overcome Heller’s Second Amendment Gambit.

In case you missed it, Cadish filled out a questionnaire during her campaign in 2008 and answered a question about whether there is a constitutional right to bear arms thusly: “I do not believe there is this constitutional right.” (See it here.)

It’s right there in black and white, in her own handwriting. But it never came out in her campaign, although it was done for a conservative group, so it’s not surprising someone slipped it to Heller after Reid suggested Cadish’s nomination this year. Here’s what has happened since Heller saw her answer on the right to bear arms:

The junior senator decided he couldn’t support Cadish and informed Reid he would not sign the so-called blue slip, a usually pro forma way to move the nomination forward. Then things got really interesting.

First of all, Reid claims Heller did not tell him why he was opposing Cadish, which seems quite the tale of a fabulist. Which conversation is more likely?

• Heller: “I’m sorry, Senator, I can’t support your choice.” Reid: “OK, thanks for telling me.”

• Heller: “I’m sorry, Senator, I can’t support your choice because she does not believe the Constitution contains a right to bear arms.” Reid: “What? You must be kidding.” Heller: “I wish I were. But I can’t sign the blue slip.” Reid: “How did I not know about this?” Heller: “I’m sorry about that.”

Of course Heller told him. And it seems as if the chain of events that ensued bears that out as Heller tried not to embarrass Reid by making any statements.

But once word leaked to me — not through either senator’s office — Reid did what he does best: He set out to win at all costs.

First, he had Cadish write a letter to “explain” her answer, a letter first reported by the Review-Journal’s Steve Sebelius, and I posted it here.

But her assertion that the answer was not “my personal opinion” was weak sauce and her invocation of court cases clarifying the Second Amendment’s intent, including one seminal decision called the Heller case (you can’t make this stuff up), seemed strained.

Reid pushed Cadish’s otherwise impeccable record and fine reputation — no one I know says she is anything but a stellar judge — and received much support in the media among columnists. My guess is Reid may even have thought Heller would relent and say he had seen the light.

But why would he?

Reid then put out word Tuesday that he would not withdraw the Cadish nomination and said Heller would meet with her, a classic Prince Harry move because he had to know no sit-down had been scheduled. But once he said it, Heller had to meet with Cadish, at least for appearances, and they are expected to have a face-to-face soon.

Most great chess players — and Reid qualifies — can think a few moves ahead and have an endgame strategy. But I can’t figure this one ending with any other play than Reid laying down his king.

Does he think he wins even if he loses by portraying Heller’s blocking move as part of his — oh, how I hate this phrase — “war on women”? Perhaps.

But does Reid think most swing voters in Nevada would agree with what Cadish said in that questionnaire? Does anyone think Reid would have filled it out that way? (His folks wouldn’t answer that one!)

Even if Heller were to change his mind — and he can’t — there is no chance, no matter how qualified Cadish might be, that the U.S. Senate would confirm her. So Reid will have the choice of a national sensation or a quiet withdrawal.

He is going to lose.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 2 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Or Senator Reid can wait till next January and have Senator Berkley sign the blue slip and send it to a different Senate for confirmation.

  2. The 2nd amendment has been argued, pro and con, as to the "right to keep and bear arms" forever. If the judge is otherwise qualified, and she is, then she should be confirmed. There are far more important issues to be addressed in this country than one judge disagreeing with the intent of the 2nd amendment.