Somehow, the Bushies have re-framed the debate over Supreme Court nominee John Roberts such that asking questions about how his judicial philosophies and how he might function in a role as a Supreme Court Justice is seen as obstructing the confirmation process. This battle was fought and won by the Republicans before any of the serious grilling could take place.
Folks, someone has to stand up and bring this country to its senses. Senators would not be doing their jobs properly if they didn't get a reasonably complete picture of Roberts. I understand Dianne Feinstein says she needs to have answers to a few critical questions before moving forward with a decision - that's how the issue needs to be re-framed by the Democrats. The burden of proof with respect to Roberts' worthiness for this position lies with John Roberts, not with those participating in the confirmation process. And if Roberts stonewalls and refuses to answer critical questions, the Democratic response should be that he failed to prove his worthiness and that he deserves a "No" vote.
How could it be any other way? I resent the implication that senators should simply rubber-stamp Bush's nomination and that asking questions amounts to obstruction. O'Connor's replacement will represent a critical vote, and if we don't know where that vote will fall, whether Roberts will be a judicial activist or a strict intepreter of the laws, or whether his philosophy is compatible with the notion of interpreting the law rather than making it, how can senators make an informed decision?
Instead of asking these very basic questions about how we'll get to know John Roberts, we're instead looking at the issue through a lens foisted on us by administration Republicans that involves thinking of the Roberts confirmation as an "us vs. them" issue, where any sort of challenge to Roberts' suitability for this post is seen as partisan politics. That's a load of crap. We need to re-frame this such that everybody is on board with getting enough information to make an educated decision.
Posted by THespos at August 26, 2005 12:48 PM | TrackBackTom, the senate has the constitutional responsibility to "advise and consent" on presidential appointments. Historically this meant assuring the president was not appointing drunks, criminals or people without required credentials. The senate's involvement was never meant to provide an opportunity for them to impose their political will on appointees or the process. Only the president that has the authority to pick his cabinet and judges, not the senate.
Another wrinkle: even given their extra-constitutional role, many senators do not even let the process take its intended course -- they stall what would often be a clear approval in the senate at large by tying up the process with parliamentary road blocks in committee. This a growing and damaging phenomenon. It’s a distraction from the real business of government, it poisons the air and most importantly, many positions go unfilled for months, even years.
In the case of Roberts, the guy clearly has the right credentials. How he would rule on one case or another is not germane to the role of the senate. This hunt for information is a stall tactic at best, at worse it seems many want to find some snippet, some small slice from an old email that will make it seem like he is anti-this or pro-that so they can half heartedly appease their base. That’s politics at its worse.
Sure this gets done on both sides but let’s get over it already. We have some serious issues to deal with. Knocking down what appears to be a pretty bright guy seems like a terrible waste of energy.
Posted by: James at August 29, 2005 06:05 PMJames:
This is one of those pesky checks and balances we've known and loved for generations. I don't think any American would be happy if the Senate simply rubber-stamped nominees after checking only to make sure they're not alcoholics, criminals or sub-par credential-wise.
I'll agree that much of the controversy generated on the ethics front seems to be a bit overblown - I think many liberals have a skewed view of judicial ethics. But I will disagree with your assertion that ferreting out how Roberts is likely to vote on important issues isn't a role germane to the Senate. It's not right for someone to pass muster without offering up some information about how his political views may influence his decision-making.
My biggest objection is that this information-gathering is being framed by the right wing as obstructionism. It's not. It's simply due diligence.
-TFH
Posted by: Tom Hespos at August 31, 2005 12:51 PMTom,
That politics would effect a ruling is exactly what is at issue here... it should not. What should have an impact is the constitution and how our laws, written and passed by our congress, adhere to it.
Even Judge Ginsburg, someone many would consider a "liberal" (although her recent ruling on property rights which sided with big business contradicts that quite a bit) refused to answer questions about her "philosophy" and how it applied to the law...at the encouragement of Senator Biden I should add. She wasn't held up in committee. There was no avalanche of old notes, briefs, emails or memos required. She got her vote up or down.
I'm sure a few Republican senators did not agree with her "politics" but those feelings are irrelevant. She was appointed by President Clinton, as is his prerogative, and apparently capable, deemed to have the right temperment and character for the job -- along with not being a drunk, of course.
If the greater senate (which was republican controlled) dissapproved they could have voted her down. They didn't, but no one would call those yes votes rubber-stamping.
If we want to continue to attract good people to these jobs we can't let the process devolve into a political campaign -- which is what is happening right now. Look how much money is spent on media on both sides. (Wait, more media dollars, maybe that's a good thing)
Carter, Regan, Clinton, Bush won elections. Along with that comes the expectation they will appoint people they support, admire and respect. They won, they pick. That’s how the game is played. A lot of senators need to relearn that and stop bogging things down.
If they want to pick judges let them win the White House.
Posted by: James at August 31, 2005 02:26 PM
All comments are property of the individual poster who left them. Everything else, copyright 2005, Tom Hespos