As a textualist, I think it’s best to judge them by their words, not by the penumbra of their words. Besides, it’s the thesis they have put forward for the reason they are not considering Garland. There is no mention of him being too extreme, only that Obama shouldn’t be able to pick the next SCOTUS justice. That is a substantively different position than shutting down a given nominee.
You misapprehend the textualist approach. It is properly applied to legislation, and not remotely relevant when it comes to political speechifying. Congress speaks through its words, says a textualist, but those words are the ones passed as laws. Indeed, what you’re doing is exactly what textualism abhors: trying to divine the will of Congress by looking to external evidence of Congressional intent.
Except that you ignore the point I made above: Obama nominates Pryor and the Senate would fall all over itself confirming. Same nominator, different nominee, different result.
Bork believed, in my view correctly, that the act was not illegal. The statute that created the Special Prosecutor at the time did so under the executive authority. The Special Prosecutor was a creature of the President and the President had every legal right to fire him.
Bork did not resign at the express request of Rucklehaus and Richardson, who had both just resigned rather than follow the order. They realized that Nixon would continue firing until he appointed the mail room supervisor as Acting Attorney General and told him to fire Cox. Both Richardson and Ruckelhaus asked Bork to stay; Bork wanted to resign as well.
It’s true that Nixon promised a Supreme Court post to Bork. But he did so after the fact – that is, there was never the quid pro quo that you suggest. And of course Nixon was ultimately in no position to fulfill that promise in any event, and no reason whatsoever to believe that Reagan had any knowledge of, or obligation to, that promise.
True. The Bork hearings certainly let nominees know that bland platitudes are preferable to truth when testifying for confirmation. Yay Democrats!
This thread is almost making me wish I not only voted for Trump but sent a fat check his way. I can only pray he keeps his word or is too lazy to do anything except say, “Hey, find that list we put out,” when the subject of nominations comes up. The left needs to have its collective noses rubbed in the concept of judicial adherence to the text of the law, and soon. Bork’s opinions about private businesses being free to serve who they please is not nearly as relevant as his opinion about how a judge applies the law to the facts.
Liberals have enjoyed a long period in which they automatically ask the courts for what they cannot achieve at the ballot box. It’s time for that to start turning back, ironically at the hands of a buffoon who probably can’t spell textualism and thinks originalism is when a TV episode airs the first time.
No, no. Hatch’s comment was clearly in the context of “a good choice that’s realistic for a Democratic president to make.”
And again, don’t get me wrong here: if I were a senator, I’d have voted to confirm Garland. Even though I believe the Democrats are at fault for Bork, I more strongly believe that my job as a senator is defined by the Constitution, not the poor behavior of an opposing political party.
BUT that does not make other views wrong. It’s certainly rationally defensible to take the position that the remedy for Bork’s treatment is gloves-off, no-holds-barred partisan treatment of nominees.
Sorry if the tongue-in-cheek aspect wasn’t clear. But the fact remains that you are speculating about a hypothetical. If we are to engage in hypotheticals, then a president Clinton would almost certainly nominate justices much “worse” than Garland, from the Republican’s perspective. It was a very risky gamble either way, so it’s hard to know what they would do if things were different.
That’s true. I myself (and IIRC Bricker as well) posting on this MB at the time of the nomination, said that the Republicans should confirm Garland. But they took a very risky gamble and it paid off against the odds. (At the time it wasn’t as risky as it later became, because no one thought Trump would be the nominee, but it was risky nonetheless.)
But the whole point of that was that Garland - a slightly left-of-center justice - was as good as the Republicans could hope to get from Obama. There was zero chance that Obama would nominate anyone even remotely comparable to Scalia. So the Republicans could announce their opposition in advance because they knew they would have something to oppose in any event. (In fact, it’s possible that the only reason Obama nominated someone as moderate as Garland was in response to the known Republican intentions.)
And if it’s not exact, then he stiffs the contractor …
Given the number of times the GOP gets accused of lying, it is a little startling to see the assumption that what they say is absolutely trustworthy no matter what the political fallout.
I thought the special prosecutor was a federal position from which you could only be fired for cause and not because the President didn’t want to hand over the Nixon tapes.
cite?
I was not saying Reagan was upholding Nixon’s promise. Just that Bork had his eyes on SCOTUS. It may not have been quid pro quo but I thought it was part of the understanding.
I don’t think Trump would be any worse than any other Republican when it comes to SCOTUS nominations.
But Congress passed no act requiring interpretation in this case, so extrinsic evidence is the only evidence of Congressional intent. You might say the question here is not so much the will of the legislature, but the won’t.
Bork was given a hearing and considered. 58 Senators voting against, with 7 of them being GOP. The Senate did the job they were supposed to do. It’s never been a automatic rubber stamp.
Pray tell me, Bricker, what was the Senate vote on Garland?:rolleyes::dubious:
If they had given Garland a hearing and the vote was 58 to 42 with 7 Dems crossing over, I’d have to say the Senate did what they were supposed to do.
And that’s all they would have had to do. Hell, even 54 to 44 along strict party lines would be adequate. I wouldnt be happy, but hey, they would have done their job.
So, Bork is a Red herring, and a non issue until and when they give Garland a hearing and a Vote.
