The Senate And The Supreme Court

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:21:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

The strange idea, that has held for quite a long time, that the Senate must defer to the President on judicial nominee is thankfully dying a slow death. Republican hold ups of President Obama's judicial nominees (including attempts to delay the confirmation hearing for Judge Sonia Sotomayor) are being explained as a "they did it first" maneuver. Simon Lazarus argues that this justification is disingenuous. That may be. But that discussion avoids the central point - the Senate should never be a rubber stamp for the President's judicial nominees.

I wrote a detailed post on why I think so. But whatever I think, it seems clear that going forward, whoever is President, his (or her) political opponents in the Senate will ensure that the Senate carries out its constitutional role of Advice and Consent. Including regarding a nominee's ideology. In my view, that is a good thing. I thought so for as long as I have considered the issue. I expressly said so in 2005. And I say it again now.

Speaking for me only

< Judge Orders Bond for Allen Stanford | Monica Conyers Pleads to Felony >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Senate And The Supreme Court | 23 comments (23 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Several times in the past I have sent (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by hairspray on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:51:39 AM EST

Democratic senators on the judicial committee letters asking them not to support a particular nominee by George Bush, and of course the standard cochroach letter was "I prefer to give the President his choice unless there are compelling reasons against the nominee.....blah,blah. This hogwash came from Democrats!

Yup, they're afraid (none / 0) (#7)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:54:01 AM EST

of ideological battles.


Or, they are generally (5.00 / 2) (#10)
by dk on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:02:31 AM EST

in agreement with the ideology of many republican judicial nominees.

I think it's a combination of both.


: Or (none / 0) (#22)
by cal1942 on Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 12:52:14 AM EST

they are actually dense enough to believe that they should simply rubber-stamp any nominee, that Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution doesn't actually count or represents some 'quaint' old-fashioned notion.
That attitude tells me that, except for getting elected, the job isn't really taken seriously.

I the Republicans want to fight about (none / 0) (#1)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:34:42 AM EST

who started it, we can talk about Abe Fortas. The rest is history.

But like you, I don't have a problem with blocking judges for ideological reasons.

Who started it is is stupid question (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:41:09 AM EST

imo.


Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:44:02 AM EST

It's childish and adds nothing to the debate. Unfortunately, that's what politics has become - we'll block their bill because they blocked ours, we'll run nasty campaign ads because they were mean to our candidate, we'll spread rumors about them because they lied about one of ours, etc.

It's so junior high. And the people suffer while these twits quibble and posture.


Sure (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:44:12 AM EST

But let's also have a discussion about why it's taboo to consider reorganizing the judiciary for political reasons.


Sure (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:51:21 AM EST

60 seats might not last forever (none / 0) (#8)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:54:35 AM EST

You wanna keep adding seats? (none / 0) (#12)
by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 12:26:05 PM EST

Make it 13 justices now, then when the Repubs are back in power (and they WILL be), they can add more, and so on, and so on. Pretty soon we'll have an SC with the same number of people as Congress itself.

Or did you have something else in mind?


After reading his comment several times, (none / 0) (#13)
by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 12:57:32 PM EST

I think he is referring to the Senata.


I thought (none / 0) (#14)
by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 01:42:54 PM EST

He wants to talk about the SC - "reorganizing the judiciary"...?


Correct (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:11:42 PM EST

60 in the Senate to pass a bill.


Then how would you (none / 0) (#17)
by jbindc on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:35:08 PM EST

reorganize the judiciary?


Pack it (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:43:38 PM EST

Maybe some day the Republicans will be able to do it too, but they'd need 60 votes first.


Haven't they already "packed" (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 03:19:55 PM EST

it?


: Mostly (none / 0) (#20)
by andgarden on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 03:30:12 PM EST

They did it by controlling the Presidency for a long time a blocking a lot of Clinton nominees. We have a lot to make up for.

Advise and Consent (none / 0) (#9)
by hairspray on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 10:59:56 AM EST

what a good story that was. I almost forgot about it until BTD used those words in his post.

Great phrases: (none / 0) (#11)
by oculus on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 11:49:51 AM EST

Democrats in 2005 were not reflexive rejectionists.

the extravagantly meticulous Sotomayor.

The constitutional role of Advice and Consent (none / 0) (#16)
by MO Blue on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 02:30:35 PM EST

only applies to Democratic nominees. Republican nominees fall under the defer to the wishes of the president rule. Please refer to all the Democratic Senators who referenced the defer to the wishes of the president rule during Bush's administration for confirmation of this premise.

Robert Bork (none / 0) (#21)
by diogenes on Fri Jun 26, 2009 at 09:33:50 PM EST

Are you young or you do you have amnesia for the nomination of Robert Bork, who was eminently qualified (as opposed to adequately qualified) but who happened to be of the wrong political persuasion.


: It doesn't (none / 0) (#23)
by cal1942 on Sat Jun 27, 2009 at 01:11:22 AM EST

make any difference why a given nominee is rejected. The fact is that the Senate is empowered to do so.
If we want to be childish about matters though the rejection of Abe Fortas preceded the wise rejection of Robert Bork, the man who had no qualms about firing Archibald Cox.