National Tax Limitation Committee President Lew Uhler Poses with the Mount Vernon Statement and George Washington impersonator James Manship (Photo by David Weigel)

The ceremony was moved into a small building set apart from the main house. Inside, a George Washington impersonator, James Manship, made the rounds as conservative activists shook hands and caught up with one another. They included Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway, Curt Levey of the Committee for Justice, Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots and Robert Bluey of the Heritage Foundation. In the press section sat R. Emmett Tyrrell, editor of the American Spectator, John Fund, political columnist for The Wall Street Journal, and Mark Tapscott, opinion editor of the Washington Examiner. I asked Tyrrell what, if anything, was new or politically impactful about this statement.

“We’ve said this for 50 years, and we’re saying it again.” said Tyrrell. “We don’t have to update anything!”

Shortly after 2:30, the signatories of the statement — including former Attorney General Ed Meese, Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist, the Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell and the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins –  lined up on a stage alongside a blown-up version of the statement. Meese rhapsodised about how far the movement had come since the 1960 Sharon Statement crafted by some of the same people in the room today — it now included, he said, “people of various minority groups.”

“If he were here, Ronald Reagan would be among first to sign the Mount Vernon statement,” said Meese. “Indeed, Ronald Reagan named the framers or the founding fathers more than his nine predecessors combined.”

Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America led the audience in a prayer, asking God to “equip us and guide us as we strive to advance constitutional principles.” And the ceremony kept that high level of pomp. Colin Hanna, the honey-voiced president of Let Freedom Ring, lectured the crowd on the history of conservative mission statements, crediting William F. Buckley with the most eloquent ones.

“Of course,” said Hanna, “William F. Buckley used Latin as a conversational language!”

Hanna read through the Sharon statement and argued that it remained relevant, if one replaced key words. “Communism — or today we would substitute the word ‘terrorism’ — must be defeated, not simply contained.”

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review Online offered up more links between this “historic” event and the conservatives of the past. “Not just here today, but around the nation, we’re seeing people do what Bill Buckley did in that first issue of National Review.” Lopez waved a facsimile of the issue. “I had to do show and tell. We have them around the office.”

Heritage Foundation president Ed Fuelner was given the task of reading out the statement, word for word. As he did so, Manship — the George Washington impersonator — nodded at key phrases like “tyrants and despots everywhere.”

“We must print out the statement’s text on our journals, our magazines and our blog posts,” said Fuelner. “We must distribute the video of today’s ceremony. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a country to save!”

Before attendees signed the document under Manship/Washington’s watchful eye, they got a special live message from radio host and author Mark Levin, who appeared on a large projection screen over the stage.

“I want to thank the media,” said Levin. “I see them all against the wall there. We’re saving or creating a nation, here.”

Levin lectured the room briefly on the importance of fighting “pseudo-conservatives” and the greatness of Ed Meese, whom Levin said respected the Constitution, “unlike the current attorney general, who never mentions the Constitution.” To the “pseudo-conservatives” he issued a warning: “It’s our turn. We’ve had about enough of you. We’re going to take you on and it’s time to defeat you.”

When Levin wrapped, the attendees lined up to sign the document, then hobnobbed with each other and a small group of reporters. Some hung around to take photos with the blown-up statement — a few grabbed Manship/Washington to pose with them.

“Whoever did this needs to do some more research,” said Manship/Washington, pointing at the giant paper sharing the photo with him. “The kerning’s too close.”

I look forward to a Supreme Court confirmation battle on the eve of the 2010 elections.

The engagement of the Second Amendment community will long be remembered as the most significant aspect of this confirmation battle.  Although the NRA’s decision to oppose Judge Sotomayor and score her confirmation vote got the most attention, the grassroots mobilization of gun owners from the bottom up is probably the biggest story.  As a result, gun rights emerged as the most influential issue in this and probably future Supreme Court confirmation battles.

Worth mentioning: Levey, among other opponents, held out hope that some Democrats would oppose Sotomayor based on the NRA score and make this a “bipartisan no vote.” They did not succeed.

Full statement:

“Although the numbers in the Senate ensured that the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor was never in doubt, those of us committed to restoring the rule of law to the federal judiciary have many things to be happy about in how Sotomayor’s confirmation battle played out.  Those include Republican senators’ courage in mounting a strong opposition; the repudiation of the living Constitution philosophy that has been so fashionable in recent decades; the multi-edged defeat of identity politics; the strong signals sent to the White House about future Supreme Court picks; and the profound change in the politics of judicial confirmations wrought by the explosion of the Second Amendment issue.

“The engagement of the Second Amendment community will long be remembered as the most significant aspect of this confirmation battle.  Although the NRA’s decision to oppose Judge Sotomayor and score her confirmation vote got the most attention, the grassroots mobilization of gun owners from the bottom up is probably the biggest story.  As a result, gun rights emerged as the most influential issue in this and probably future Supreme Court confirmation battles.

“By adding a large and influential constituency to the coalition opposing the nomination of judicial activists, the Second Amendment issue has forever changed the political dynamics of the judicial confirmation process.  It is no coincidence that most of the GOP senators from states with both large Hispanic and gun-owning populations decided to vote against Sotomayor, or that the 30-plus Republican votes against confirmation far exceeded the expectations of liberals and conservatives alike.  By all reports, the White House was very surprised at how big the gun issue turned out to be, and it is unlikely that a President will ever again choose a Supreme Court nominee with a record that can be characterized as hostile to the Second Amendment.

“One need only recall the mere three GOP votes against the elevation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the Supreme Court to know that the Republican leadership – Sens. McConnell, Kyl, Thune, Cornyn, and on the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Sessions – and most of the party’s other senators deserve tremendous credit for refusing to be cowed by the ‘you better vote for the first Hispanic Supreme Court nominee’ attitude of the White House and Senate Democrats.

“Republican senators should be proud not only of their votes today, but also of the tough but fair questions they asked Sotomayor during her hearings and of the powerful floor statements they made in opposing her.  As a result, Americans got the teaching moment they deserved.  For the first time since the nomination of Robert Bork in 1987, the confirmation battle saw a serious debate about judicial philosophy and the proper role of judges, rather than just an argument about case outcomes.

“It could have been an even grander debate if Judge Sotomayor and her White House handlers had not chosen to run away from, rather than defend, the philosophy of empathy and ethnicity-based judging espoused by the President and by his nominee in her many speeches.  Perhaps the most memorable moment of Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings was her explicit and complete repudiation of President’s Obama’s call for judges who rule from the heart in the most difficult cases.

“I share the frustration of liberal legal commentators over Sotomayor’s refusal to stand and fight for the concept of a living Constitution, but there’s a huge silver lining: the living Constitution is now dead as a defensible judicial philosophy outside academia.  There is no doubt that judicial activism will live on surreptitiously in the courts, but it is doubtful we will ever again see a Supreme Court nominee who has openly espoused it, no less one willing to defend it during his or her confirmation hearings.

“Finally, it has been a bad summer for the purveyors of identity politics. Not only was the President forced to beat a hasty retreat from his old-school, victim-based take on last month’s incident in Cambridge, but his Supreme Court nominee denied any knowledge of the race-base theories of judging she and other liberals have long championed.  Meanwhile, Democrats failed miserably in their attempt to convince Republican senators that they opposed a Hispanic nominee at their ‘own peril’ (quoting Sen. Schumer).  Polls showing that Hispanics and non-Hispanic whites shared the same unimpressive levels of support for Sotomayor generally, as well as the same levels of specific concern about her Second Amendment record, dealt a further blow to identity politics.  Those of us who believe that racial favoritism has no place in law or politics should celebrate.”

Sonia Sotomayor during her confirmation hearings (WDCpix)

As the Senate Judiciary Committee readies for Tuesday’s vote on Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor, conservative judicial activists are taking stock of the battle that demanded so much of their energy for more than two months. They don’t expect to make her the first high court nominee to go down to defeat since 1987 — a scenario that had always seemed unlikely. They do expect a majority of Republicans to oppose her, and that’s more than they had expected when the nomination was announced.

“The Republican senators did much better than I expected,” said Manny Miranda, the chairman of the Third Branch Conference, a judicial conservative umbrella group that opposed Sotomayor’s nomination largely behind the scenes.

Image by: Matt Mahurin

In early June, Miranda had been bearish on the Republican conference, doubtful that it would put up a fight. He called Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell “limp-wristed” and organized 145 conservative activists to campaign for a filibuster of Sotomayor, which they’re not going to get. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), in announcing his opposition to the nominee, admitted that her confirmation was probably inevitable. Yet they feel like the debate over Sotomayor was as much as a conservative success as it could have possibly been, and they see a chance to give the nominee the lowest level of support from the opposition party since the bruising 1991 fight over Clarence Thomas.

“When we started, I didn’t expect more than 16 ‘no’ votes,” said Miranda. “Now I think we may go as high as 29 votes. We’ve achieved quite a lot.”

With a final vote on Sotomayor likely before the Senate leaves for its August recess, the wins and losses of the confirmation battle are becoming clearer to activists. After a few bumps in May, the attack on Sotomayor as a judicial activist who had trouble seeing past race was bolstered by a focus on her often-repeated remarks about how a “wise Latina” judge might rule in discrimination cases. An early focus on whether Sotomayor would have “empathy” for defendants cowed her, activists argue, into backing away from any hint of that. And activists credit the successful push to get the National Rifle Association to “score” the confirmation vote, forcing senators to oppose Sotomayor if they want to maintain high ratings from the group, while marshaling several senators against her.

“The NRA’s decision to score the vote is a huge statement,” said Curt Levey, director of the Committee for Justice. “They were hesitant to get involved. Even if Sotomayor is eventually confirmed, the fact that the NRA came to realize the importance of Supreme Court nominations in protecting gun rights is a very big deal. The grassroots have been activated.”

It was no sure thing that the nation’s most powerful gun rights group would oppose Sotomayor. Activists familiar with the campaign to bring it on board said that they started early, theorizing that they might need the group’s intervention to keep enough senators wavering on a vote to delay it past the recess. They argued that in the post-Heller era, Sotomayor–who wrote in 2004 that “the right to possess a gun is clearly not a fundamental right”–posed a real threat to the Second Amendment. One activist speculated that both Utah senators had been brought around to vote “no” because of the NRA’s move; Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) has not previously opposed a high court nominee, and Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah) is facing a stiff primary challenge. Losing the NRA’s support could hurt Bennett with Republican voters. Levey and other activists are making the case to “red state” Democrats that defying the NRA this year will put their seats at risk.

The unprecedented move by the NRA has drawn some fire from supporters of President Obama’s nominee. On Monday, four Hispanic Democratic members of the House of Representatives wrote an open letter to the NRA attacking the group for “evaluating Judge Sotomayor by a different standard” than previous Supreme Court nominees. But conservative critics of Sotomayor look back on the hearings and the months-long debate on the nomination and see little evidence that they did damage to their image with Hispanic voters.

“[Republicans] didn’t do to Sotomayor what Democrats did to Miguel Estrada,” said Mario H. Lopez, the president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, referring to President George W. Bush’s Washington, D.C. Circuit Court nominee who withdrew after multiple filibusters, who was cited as a sort of martyr by Republican senators during Sotomayor’s hearing. “I don’t recall anything but a respectful and serious tone of questions from these hearings.”

Conservatives spoke derisively to TWI about the early tone of the Sotomayor battle, especially Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)’s assertion that “Republicans will oppose [Sotomayor] at their peril because of “her life story on the court.” Polling suggested that Hispanics generally supported the judge — one McClatchy poll found that Hispanics, by a 24-point margin, would have preferred that Republicans backed Sotomayor — but activists claimed that the nominee didn’t inspire Hispanics the way that backers like Schumer had insisted she would.

“The backlash against Republicans for opposing her never materialized,” said Miranda, who sparked a mini-controversy in June for suggesting that Hispanics wouldn’t unanimously back the nominee because they, unlike black voters, “think like everybody else.” Sotomayor, suggested Miranda, cut a more “sophisticated” and distant pose than Estrada. “He touched a cord with the community. We [supporters of Estrada] conducted polling on this. Eighty-six percent of Hispanics believed that Miguel deserved an up-or-down vote, and 87 percent supported him.”

Republicans and activists considered Sotomayor’s rejection of a “living Constitution” or an empathy standard during her confirmation hearings a clear victory, although one that will be harder to hold Democats to. Several activists pointed to Sotomayor’s rejection of one of Obama’s concepts of justice, that a judge’s heart can take him or her “the last mile” in judging the case, as a key moment that will be used to assess and frame future nominees. “Conservatives can take heart that they really do stand with the American people,” said Mario Lopez. “That was a reflection of how fair out of the mainstream Democrats are on judicial philosophy.”

But that was largely how the people who worked to grind down Sotomayor’s nomination viewed their success. They won’t stop her. They have discovered what may and may not be able to stop a future nominee.

“The goal isn’t to defeat Sotomayor,” explained Levey. “It’s to send enough of a warning shot that future nominees won’t be as hostile to the Constitution.”

The Committee for Justice, for example, developed five ads formatted for television and newspapers, one of which compared Sotomayor’s work for the Puerto Rican Defense Fund to President Obama’s friendship with reformed Weather Underground member Bill Ayers. It got plenty of attention; people clicked through to the committee’s site, and some donated. But TV viewers won’t see that particular attack on their screens. “I don’t think the ad was effective,” Levey admitted. “We’ll run some ads in the final week, but I don’t think we’ll run that ad.”

“I can’t say I’m surprised,” said Levey. “Anyone who listened to Graham during the hearings knew he was going to wind up voting for Sotomayor. Nor can I say that Graham’s vote is very significant. For one thing, it’s difficult to draw any broad conclusions from his decision given that he’s a maverick just like his close friend John McCain. Moreover, I’m less focused on what the members of the Judiciary Committee do than on the vote people remember, namely the confirmation vote. I’m particularly focused on whether any red state Democrats vote against Sotomayor because of her hostility to the Second Amendment.”

“Sessions is one of the best legal minds in the Senate,” said Curt Levey, executive director of the Committee for Justice, which is collecting research on possible Souter replacements. “He totally gets the judges issue, and he gets it deeply. For example, I think all of the Republicans on the committee know that courts shouldn’t be finding a constitutional right to gay marriage. But I think Sessions understands, and can explain, why substantive due process in Dred Scott was wrong and why it was wrong in Roe v. Wade as well. Sessions can be assertive without coming off as hostile.”