Film director David Van Taylor (“The Perfect Candidate”) has a knack for good timing. “Advise & Dissent,” his newest feature on Supreme Court nominations and the Senate, had its world premiere in Washington as the city gears up for the next justice fight.
“Advise & Dissent,” which premiered May 5 to a sold-out crowd at the 2010 Politics on Film festival, follows the 2005-2006 nominations of Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Samuel Alito to the Court through the eyes of two key lawmakers – Sens. Arlen Specter (D-PA) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) – and two key lobbyists, Ralph Neas of liberal group People For the American Way and Manuel Miranda of the conservative Third Branch Conference.
Throughout the film, Van Taylor’s camera ably stays in the eye of the storm: poking over the shoulders of reporters as they chase down a nominee, catching senators in a quiet moment of self-reflection and watching lobbyists work their magic outside hearing rooms.
In a panel discussion after the screening that included the director, Neas and Miranda, CBS News chief legal correspondent Jan Crawford pointed out that the film’s release was primed to kick-start a discussion about the Senate’s role in the nomination process as President Obama seeks a replacement for Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, who announced his retirement last month.
As captured in the film, the Roberts’ nomination was marked by a relatively light discussion of his judicial philosophy and views on major issues. In the panel, Van Taylor concluded that a move towards more substantial discussion during the nominations process would need to come from a bipartisan group of senators saying, “We’re not going to confirm people unless they’re ready to have this conversation” about their views on key issues.
Van Taylor’s film contrasted the Roberts/Alito hearings with those of Robert Bork, which saw senators, including Specter and Leahy, question the judge’s philosophy and views. “The Bork fight was what it should be,” Van Taylor said. “It brings the people into the conversation,” he added, and people want a deeper discussion of the issues before a lifetime court appointment.
The film also offers a peek into the clubby world of the U.S. Senate, and what happens when that geniality is challenged. For example, while Leahy voted in support of Roberts, he later seems upset when his close friend and colleague Specter supports Alito, a nominee that raised strong concerns among Democrats. Van Taylor posited that Leahy seemed to subscribe to “a bipartisan paradigm that was old and went back to Bork,” while Specter had moved on from that line of thinking.
Questions about judicial philosophy are not limited to Republican nominees, as seen with Obama’s first pick for the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, who was confirmed by the Senate last summer and largely side-stepped questions about her approach to legal issues. At the panel, Neas said he is is “not disappointed” with the confirmation of Sotomayor, but saw the hearings as a “missed opportunity” to discuss judicial philosophy.
Crawford also pointed out that the Obama “short list” for the current court vacancy included a number of fairly moderate jurists – picks Republicans would be hard-pressed to oppose. Miranda agreed that Republican senators would most likely support a nominee that is a “reasonable choice,” and said it was hard for lawmakers to oppose “qualified” nominees like Alito or Sotomayor.
The Supreme Court could also become a high-profile election issue as current justices begin pondering retirement. For the left in particular, recent controversial rulings, like the Citizens United decision, could draw more scrutiny from voters seeking to change the composition of the court. “They get what the court did and they don’t like,” panelist Margey Baker, of People for the American Way, said.
As the far-reaching panel discussion illustrated, Van Taylor’s film not only provided an insider snapshot of the nomination process, but also framed a set of issues that will only grow in importance in the coming years.
By Aaron Lovell