ShareThis Page
News Columnists

Teddy's man Flug

| Thursday, Aug. 25, 2005

WASHINGTON -- An alert this week from backers of Judge John Roberts cautions not to take seriously Democrat complaints that they cannot stop his confirmation. A memo sent to thousands of conservatives warns that the assault on President Bush's first Supreme Court nominee is yet to come. A major reason cited for this belief is the man back at Sen. Edward M. Kennedy's side on the Senate Judiciary Committee: James Flug.

"It is hard to fathom Mr. Flug coming back to Capitol Hill after 30 years of private practice for anything other than a bitterly tough confirmation fight," says the memo, signed by three prominent Roberts backers. The Kennedy-Flug partnership blocking confirmation of Republican judges dates back to the defeat of President Richard Nixon's Supreme Court nominees G. Harrold Carswell and Clement F. Haynsworth. As Kennedy's rhetoric intensifies, the atmosphere leading up to next month's Roberts hearings feels like the eve of battle.

I had known Flug while he was a Kennedy aide in the late 1960s and in Kennedy's 1980 campaign for president. He returned my call last week, and I asked why Flug, now 66, would return to a job normally filled by somebody 30 years younger. When he learned what I was after, Flug broke off the conversation.

I did not get a chance to ask him about the nomination of Appellate Judge William Pryor, but I talked to several other sources. When Flug returned to Kennedy's staff two years ago, he was immersed in the Kennedy-led attempt to reject Bush judicial nominees. Alabama Attorney General Pryor, nominated to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, was a principal target.

Documents concerning Pryor's fundraising as founder of the Republican Attorneys General Association were leaked to Kennedy's office by a former RAGA secretary who took the documents without permission. Three sources told me that Flug was the Kennedy staffer receiving the purloined material. The attempt to ambush Pryor was ruined when the plan was disclosed in a July 16, 2003, column in the Mobile Register. Pryor was one of three appellate nominees who this year was finally confirmed in the "Group of 14" agreement.

After my brief conversation with Flug, Kennedy's press office said the aide was too busy to talk to me. As to why he returned to Kennedy's staff, the senator's press aide referred me to a flattering profile of Flug in the Aug. 19, 2003, edition of The Hill newspaper. "It was an extraordinary opportunity to maybe repeat history," Flug was quoted as saying.

The Hill interview did not indicate Flug's repetition of history when he returned earlier to help Kennedy battle a stiff 1994 re-election challenge by current Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. Flug hired private investigator Terry Lenzner to research Romney, an arrangement that was kept off official campaign reports and was at first denied by the Kennedy campaign.

That record is why Flug is mentioned prominently in the memo sent out this week by Leonard Leo (Federalist Society), Jay Sekulow (American Center for Law and Justice) and Edwin Meese (Heritage Foundation). It cites the bitter Clarence Thomas confirmation when Democrats said they had no chance to win before beginning the real assault, warning the same can happen with Roberts.

Kennedy began stepping up his assault on Roberts in a Washington Post op-ed, questioning whether Roberts "will adopt a cramped and contorted view of our Constitution that will turn back the clock." That sounds like a toned-down version of Kennedy's description of "Robert Bork's America" as a country of "back-alley abortions" and "segregated lunch counters." Based on the past, has Jim Flug returned to provide ammunition for the senator's attack machine?

Robert Novak is a columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me