Sen. Lisa Murkowski says she has no intention of yielding to pressure from the Colorado-based evangelical group Focus on the Family, which is calling her a "squishy Republican" in its campaign to prevent Democrats from using the filibuster to block the appointments of some federal judges.
Firing back at the organization, which is running ads against her in Alaska and targeted her during its "Justice Sunday" simulcast to conservative churches around the country last weekend, Murkowski said the group is trying to undermine the Constitution's separation of power doctrine that has served the nation well for more than 200 years.
"I am NOT squishy," Murkowski said in a telephone interview from Washington. "This whole deal with Focus on the Family has gotten me mad. They're not going to put me in a corner this way."
But even as she resists the organization, Murkowski still is not saying how she would ultimately vote if the so-called nuclear option button is pressed and the Senate must choose whether to continue to allow judicial filibusters.
The lobbying arms of Focus on the Family of Colorado Springs, Colo., and its close ally, the Family Research Council of Washington, D.C., are pushing hard on the Senate to change its rules so that controversial judges can be approved by a simple majority, not the 60 votes that would be required to overcome a filibuster.
While the Senate has confirmed 205 of Bush's judicial nominees, according to Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, Democrats are holding up seven others, asserting at least some are extremists who would likely impose their own right-wing beliefs in their decisions.
Leaders of the two evangelical organizations have gone further than just demanding a stop to the filibusters, but are also looking for ways to remove judges. The Los Angeles Times obtained a tape recording of a March 17 discussion between James C. Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, and Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, who said there were ways besides impeachment for Congress to remove federal judges -- and even entire courts -- to get a judiciary that takes their views on abortion, same-sex marriage and situations like the Terri Schiavo case.
Perkins said funds could be taken away from some courts, rendering them helpless, while Dobson said Congress could just eliminate a court, such as the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Alaska.
"Very few people know this, that the Congress can simply disenfranchise a court," the Times quoted Dobson as saying. "They don't have to fire anybody or impeach them or go through that battle. All they have to do is say the 9th Circuit doesn't exist anymore, and it's gone."
Murkowski said she is deeply troubled by those ideas, which have also been espoused by House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas.
"They say, 'We've got to get rid of these judges, we'll just de-fund the courts.' You think about the arrogance of that attitude. 'I don't like the decisions of the 9th Circuit -- we can make them disappear, just like that.' "
Murkowski, an attorney, said even though she might disagree with a decision or an individual judge, "that doesn't mean I'd agree to eliminate the balance. But that's what these guys are talking about."
Radio and newspaper ads from Focus on the Family began appearing two weeks ago, targeting Murkowski and eight other Republican senators who either opposed or were undecided on changing the filibuster rule.
In Murkowski's case, the newspaper ad in the Daily News said she "might align herself with liberals to halt most Senate business rather than allow a simple, up or down vote on the President's judicial candidates."
The radio commercial, airing on Anchorage talk station KBYR, Anchorage Christian station KAFC, and Fairbanks news and talk radio KFBX, says Murkowski "is likely to cooperate with Democrat plans to continue blocking qualified judicial nominees."
During the national simulcast Sunday, which the Family Research Council claimed reached 61 million families, Dobson decried "squishy Republicans" as images of Murkowski, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., scrolled across the screen along with their office phone numbers.
In fact, Murkowski said, she wants up-or-down votes on Bush's nominees. But exercising the "nuclear option," or the "constitutional option," as Focus on the Family calls it, could lead the Democrats to carry out their threat to halt Senate business, she said, and with it, legislation important to Alaska such as the transportation bill and the budget, which would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling.
Murkowski said she was surprised to find herself targeted. "They never even called our office to find what our official position was, and quite frankly I feel what they're saying is false," she said.
But Amanda Banks, federal issues analyst for Focus on the Family, said Murkowski's position was well documented. Banks said the organization would be happy to stop the ads if Murkowski would state how she would vote on the filibuster rule change.
"I've had more than one conversation with her press office and always want to give her the opportunity to make a statement, so this is based purely on her decision not to provide one, not to take a position," Banks said.
Murkowski said she is being "thoughtful" in holding back and trying to affect a compromise that would prevent the need for a vote on rules and permit an "up or down vote" on all the nominees.
"Push has not come to shove yet. We are not at that point when this is the only thing left for us to do," she said. "I don't want to change the rules in an effort to rectify an issue we are dealing with today that we might regret next year or five years from now."
Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, who favors eliminating the judicial filibuster, said he nevertheless opposes the ad campaign against Murkowski. "I told my (Republican) caucus that this is a terrible tactic that is being used against her," he said in a statement. "Every Senator has a right to make up his or her mind without such extreme pressure. I defend her right to do what she believes is right."
While the House doesn't have a direct stake in the debate, since only the Senate has the constitutional "advice and consent" role on judicial appointees, Rep. Don Young, R-Alaska, said Thursday his advice is to be cautious about changing the filibuster rule.
"There are ramifications you may not recognize in what you're doing," Young said. "Some of the more conservative groups know this now, too. For instance the (National Rifle Association) is not supporting the nuclear option because they know there may be a time when they need to utilize this tactic to stop something from occurring that would be detrimental to their interests."
Daily News reporter Richard Mauer reported from Anchorage and reporter Nicole Tsong from Washington. Mauer can be reached at rmauer@adn.com or 257-4345., and Tsong can be reached at ntsong@adn.com or 1-202-383-0007.
Democrats blocked 10 of President Bush's first-term judicial nominees using the filibuster, saying they were unsuited for the bench, and Republicans were unable to come up with the 60 votes necessary to end unlimited debate. While three of those nominees withdrew, seven are still pending.
Some Republicans, hoping to end the standoff before a Supreme Court vacancy occurs -- perhaps by June -- are threatening to change Senate rules to bar the filibuster for judicial appointments, first used against Abe Fortas in 1968, a Democratic nominee for chief justice. Without the filibuster, a nominee would need 51 votes.
Originally dubbed the "nuclear option" by Republicans because of its dramatic consequences, they now prefer to call it the "Constitutional option." Democrats are threatening to shut down all but essential business if the option, whatever it's called, is invoked.
In the past few days, several possible compromises have surfaced, though none has received widespread support. One proposal, reported Wednesday in the Capitol insider newspaper Roll Call, would have Republicans withdrawing the most controversial nominees in exchange for the Democrats agreeing to stop filibustering except in "extraordinary circumstances."
