# Do we really want SCOTUS confirmations to go like this? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 13, 2006, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-want-scotus-confirmations-to-go-like-this/339822 "2006-01-13T15:24:19Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 5\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![DSeid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dseid/32/20194_2.png) [@DSeid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSeid)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-want-scotus-confirmations-to-go-like-this/339822/41 "2006-01-19T02:26:57Z")
**Zahava** > [@](#): > > I think that after Harriet Miers, the liberal base had exhausted public sympathy for its righteous indignation Boy, talk about rapid fire historical revisionism! Uh, it was the Right that kaboshed H.M. They were not convinced she was conservative enough. Her lack of experience and the cronyism were obvious but were not why she was withdrawn. No, the liberal base had all the sympathy in the world since the right had played their veto card and gotten their first choice nominated. The H.M. debacle made fighting Alito easier to do. But you can defeat a nominee only in a few ways. Prove he is incompentent. Alito is not. Prove that he is far outside the mainstream and will be an activist judge. He may be but the case as not convincingly made. Therefore we in the general public, even those of us who are a bit left of the bulk of America, think that the far right should get their guy, even if we don’t like him and even if we fear the results of having him on the courts. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-want-scotus-confirmations-to-go-like-this/339822/42 "2006-01-19T03:51:04Z")
> [@Little Nemo](#): > > He took an oath to represent everybody not just the people who voted for him. Actually, he doesn’t. He takes an oath to do his job delineated in Article II, Sections 2 & 3 > [@](#): > > Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments > The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment. > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments. > The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session. > > Section 3 - State of the Union, Convening Congress > He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. and to defend the constitution. “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Note: > [@](#): > > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and **he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint** Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, **Judges of the supreme Court,** and all other Officers of the United States I don’t see anything that states that his choice be acceptable to Americans, but rather acceptable to (most) of the Senate. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-want-scotus-confirmations-to-go-like-this/339822/43 "2006-01-19T15:33:47Z")
> [@Curious Joe](#): > > So, here we have Alito. He says one thing during the hearings, and he’ll most likely turn around and do the opposite after he is confirmed. Typical of this administration to choose people like that. That’a a very disingenuous editorial. The case in question was about a technical aspect of a particular statute, not about any constitutional rights. Besides, what does “the right to be left alone” mean? Can we have the exact quote from Roberts, and the context it was said in? No SCOTUS justice would make such a blanket statement regarding law or the constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-want-scotus-confirmations-to-go-like-this/339822/44 "2006-01-19T16:46:41Z")
> [@smiling bandit](#): > > You are assuming what you set out to prove. I mis-read your earlier point to be that membership alone was not sufficient to impugn him, that he would have needed to actively participated in the club. Do you agree that, stipulating it was a racist/sexist club, his membership alone is troubling? > [@smiling bandit](#): > > No, it wanted them not to have preferential admissions, which is not the same. No, that’s not true. CAP was uncomfortable with having an increasing number of minorities and women at the college, so it sought to limit the number. This is not the same thing as opposing preferential admissions. ---
**Author:** ![Zahava424](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/76d3ee/32.png) [@Zahava424](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zahava424)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2006, 11:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-want-scotus-confirmations-to-go-like-this/339822/45 "2006-01-19T23:15:20Z")
> [@DSeid](#): > > Boy, talk about rapid fire historical revisionism! Uh, it was the Right that kaboshed H.M. They were not convinced she was conservative enough. Her lack of experience and the cronyism were obvious but were not why she was withdrawn. > > No, the liberal base had all the sympathy in the world since the right had played their veto card and gotten their first choice nominated. The H.M. debacle made fighting Alito easier to do. But you can defeat a nominee only in a few ways. Prove he is incompentent. Alito is not. Prove that he is far outside the mainstream and will be an activist judge. He may be but the case as not convincingly made. Therefore we in the general public, even those of us who are a bit left of the bulk of America, think that the far right should get their guy, even if we don’t like him and even if we fear the results of having him on the courts. Okay, that’s all valid. It was, in the end, the far right that quashed the Miers nomination, not the left, though the left was annoyed about it. But at the same time, I do think that the average Democrat is viewing Alito in contrast to Miers, and he’s understandably coming off better. And you’re right about the second point; Democratic leadership just doesn’t see a good way to kill the Alito nomination. He seems too intelligent to be painted with a very broad, he-hates-abortion-and-gay-people brush, and the other usual attacks you mentioned just don’t fit him. Either way, I don’t like his politics, but I think that of all the choices Bush could have made, this isn’t too bad. I can live with him on the court. I think that, like Roberts, he will be an unimaginative justice, ruling purely on the minutiae of the case at hand and not on the greater societal implications of his decision. Considering I probably wouldn’t like the decisions he’d make if he were trying to better society, I’m glad he’s going to be a boring justice. We could do a lot worse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/do-we-really-want-scotus-confirmations-to-go-like-this/339822.md?page=2)