Please Mr. Bush: Appoint A New Judiciary Committee Chair

[Annie]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-11_8_05_TS2.html

November 8, 2005
Irrelevant Questions
By Thomas Sowell

The recent announcement by Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter that confirmation hearings on Judge Samuel Alito have been postponed until January was only the latest in a series of painful examples of what happens when Senate Republicans wimp out.

Senator Specter did not wimp out. The Senate Republican "leadership" wimped out when they made him chairman of the Judiciary Committee after he had fired a shot across the bow of his own President, right after the election, publicly warning President Bush not to nominate anyone to the Supreme Court who would stir up controversy in the Senate.

That was the time to replace Senator Specter with a chairman who would support, or at least not sabotage, the President's attempt to put the kind of people on the courts that he had pledged to appoint during the election campaign. Instead, the Senate "leadership" accepted Senator Specter's assurances that he would cooperate.

Well, now he is cooperating -- with the Democrats on his committee.

The delay in Judge Alito's confirmation hearings gives the Senate Democrats and all the liberal-left interest groups time to orchestrate a fear and smear campaign and raise the money to advertise those fears and smears, both directly and by organized protests that will get much free publicity in the liberal media.

There is another aspect to this. Liberal Senators have every incentive to drag out the confirmation process, regardless of how the final vote turns out, because the longer they stall the longer Sandra Day O'Connor remains on the Supreme Court. She is their kind of judge, one who makes policy instead of applying the law.

There was a time when the nomination of someone with Judge Alito's high qualifications to be on the Supreme Court would be confirmed by the Senate with little discussion and the confirmation reported with little comment in the media. But that was in earlier times, when common decency could be taken for granted.

Today, we can look for a Roman circus, complete with Christians being thrown to the lions. Worse yet, the idea will be reinforced that a judge's "views" on issues of the day are important and need to be questioned at interminable length.

Actually, the only view that really matters is a judge's view of the role of a judge. If a judge sees his role as applying laws passed by other people, then his own personal views on issues are irrelevant.

Demands for "more information" have also become part of this Roman circus, even when the Senators themselves know that the information they are asking for cannot be released.

If a Senator thinks the information available on any nominee is inadequate, then all that Senator has to do is vote not to confirm. The power to vote yes or no does not include obstructing other Senators from voting or dragging out the confirmation hearings into a media spectacle and a public humiliation.

Justice Clarence Thomas said it best during his confirmation hearings: "Confirm me if you want, don't confirm me if you are so led, but let this process end."

It needs to end for everybody -- not just for this nominee or the next nominee but for the good of the country, so that the best qualified people are willing to go through the nomination process, without fear that the reputation of a lifetime will not be dragged through the mud.

Senator Orrin Hatch has aptly said that the coming battle over the nomination of Judge Alito will be "Armageddon." It will be Armageddon for the Republican party.

If the Republicans are not willing to fight for the things that people elected them to do, then some of the people who elected them may not turn out to vote for them at the next election.

People who have for years not only voted for the Republicans, but donated their time and money to the Republican party, who have volunteered to stuff envelopes, man the phones and walk the precincts to get out the vote on cold election nights, deserve something better than Senators who wimp out at crunch time.

If the fate of the legal system in this country is not enough incentive for Senate Republicans to show some backbone, maybe concern for their own re-election will be.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Given the extent to which the judicial nomination process ahs been politicized, changes to the system would be appropriate. I would suggest blind nominations. In this process candidates would be nominated based solely upon their qualifications and the quality of their judgements as show by the number of times their decisions have been overturned on, Constitutional grounds, by higher courts. Their names and party affiliations would not be considered in this process...only their qualifications and quality of their decisions.

We don't need an ideologically driven judicial system, save where that ideology protects our freedoms from unconstituional usurpation by the legislative and executive branches.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Given the extent to which the judicial nomination process ahs been politicized, changes to the system would be appropriate. I would suggest blind nominations. In this process candidates would be nominated based solely upon their qualifications and the quality of their judgements as show by the number of times their decisions have been overturned on, Constitutional grounds, by higher courts. Their names and party affiliations would not be considered in this process...only their qualifications and quality of their decisions.

We don't need an ideologically driven judicial system, save where that ideology protects our freedoms from unconstituional usurpation by the legislative and executive branches.

Oh I see, since you cannot enforce your agenda for society through the courts, you'd like no agenda to be enforced. Let's do this, let's just go with strict constructionists, which is what ALL judges are supposed to be. Going by number of overturned cases reveals nothing and means nothing.

 

[Bonnie]

Kathianne..Please Mr. Bush: Appoint A New Judiciary Committee Chair
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Co...1_8_05_TS2.html

Excellent!! I really like Mr Sowell

 

[KarlMarx]

Given the extent to which the judicial nomination process ahs been politicized, changes to the system would be appropriate. I would suggest blind nominations. In this process candidates would be nominated based solely upon their qualifications and the quality of their judgements as show by the number of times their decisions have been overturned on, Constitutional grounds, by higher courts. Their names and party affiliations would not be considered in this process...only their qualifications and quality of their decisions.

We don't need an ideologically driven judicial system, save where that ideology protects our freedoms from unconstituional usurpation by the legislative and executive branches.

When justices like Ruth Bader Ginsberg, a card carrying member of the ACLU, was appointed to the Supreme Court, not a word about how political considerations were tainting the judicial nomination process from the Left. Now Bush is calling the shots and it's all this talk about "qualified justices".

Anyway Bully, when Robert Bork, a former Solicitor General, acting Attorney General, circuit judge for United States Court of Appeals and law professor was nominated by Reagan, he was "borked" by the NOW and rated "unqualified" (!!!!!!!!) by the American Bar Association.

Then, when Thomas Clarence was nominated by the first President Bush, the NOW made the whole nomination process a three ring circus by dragging Anita Hill who practically perjured herself. Talk about a shameful spectacle.

And the freaking Democrats have filibustered just about every judicial nominee of Bush's....

It takes a lot of brass when the Left pulls crap like that and then put on airs about "politicizing the judicial process"

No, the only way the Left will be satisfied is when Bush's nominees will say that they are for Roe vs. Wade. That's the Left's definition of a "qualified" justice.

Frankly, I'd like to see a whole bunch of Senators impeached, first and foremost that rat I call a Senator .... Chuck Schumer!

We don't need an ideologically driven judicial system, save where that ideology protects our freedoms from unconstituional usurpation by the legislative and executive branches

You must be joking....... the unconstitutional usurpation has been by the courts, and has been every since Marbury vs Madison in 1803!

 

[Avatar4321]

Given the extent to which the judicial nomination process ahs been politicized, changes to the system would be appropriate. I would suggest blind nominations. In this process candidates would be nominated based solely upon their qualifications and the quality of their judgements as show by the number of times their decisions have been overturned on, Constitutional grounds, by higher courts. Their names and party affiliations would not be considered in this process...only their qualifications and quality of their decisions.

We don't need an ideologically driven judicial system, save where that ideology protects our freedoms from unconstituional usurpation by the legislative and executive branches.

Yeah we do need an idealogical driven judicial system. We need a judicial system that is loyal to the ideals found in the Constitution of the United States of America. You are living in a fantasy world if you think that somehow the judicial branch hasn't been politicized before. It has been since Marbury v Madison and the first shift in power between political parties in history.

Besides, how do you determine quality of decisions without the standard of the constitution?

 

[KarlMarx]

Yeah we do need an idealogical driven judicial system. We need a judicial system that is loyal to the ideals found in the Constitution of the United States of America. You are living in a fantasy world if you think that somehow the judicial branch hasn't been politicized before. It has been since Marbury v Madison and the first shift in power between political parties in history.

Besides, how do you determine quality of decisions without the standard of the constitution?

Marbury vs Madison as in "the judiciary alone has the power to interpret the Constitution"....

I read that Thomas Jefferson had a fit when he heard what Justice John Marshall pulled

Link to "Men in Black" on amazon.com

[ame]http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260506/002-4607091-9910467?v=glance[/ame]