IIRC, the problem was not that Kennedy was liberal, or moderate, or anything - his chief virtue was that he had not ruled or expressed an opinion that could be considered as violating the “litmus test” issues of either party. During his confirmation it was remarked upon that little was known of his opinions, and of course during the hearings he could not comment on hypotheticals or issues currently before the court. It was a commentary at the time that it seemed the road to the supreme court now required the judge to not have written any controversial opinions. The belief was that he was conservative enough to satisfy the Republicans. In fact, he was occasionally more moderate than expected.
I think that may also have been true of Souter…didn’t he avoid committing himself in any political direction?
There is a wide gap between not consenting to a judicial candidate for various reasons- vs simply refusing to consider anyone at all.
I guess too that an interesting dilemma is - “who’s next?”
Right now, if the court splits 4-4 on anything, the lower court decision stands but with the option to hear a similar case further down the road; meaning any contentious cases are futile, or have contradictory opinions in different jurisdictions… and someone has to go through the whole appeal process all over again (taking what, several years? Dollars?) to rehear, say, the Health care act birth control mandate. The senate simply adds SCOTUS to the list of institutions inheriting their stalemate.
If another conservative judge dies first, then it’s mission accomplished; the court is effectively 4-3 (4-2-K?) liberal. If a liberal judge dies first, then it’s back to 3-3-K, the same balance as now.
There just aren’t that many 5-4 decisions, though. And because there have been so many recent nominees (who are seemingly more cognizant of situations requiring recusals than Scalia) there are going to be smaller numbers of justices sitting on many big cases anyway.
Agreed. This is GQ. I’ve voiced my opinion on the Republican’s SC posturing in Elections. Feel free to go see what I think of it/them.
The end result is the same.
Logically untrue.
Wouldn’t it be interesting if Obama nominated a far-right conservative? Wonder if all those arguments for not considering a nominee would be thrown aside.
Not for political purposes there’s not.
Providing hearings and a vote that rejects is a lot easier to sell to the country than just refusing to even consider a nominee.
Sure. But so is the end result of a show trial and a fair one where the accused is convicted. Nevertheless, we value the process.
Refusing a hearing is not the same as voting no. For one thing, it only takes a very small number of senators to stop the process entirely, but it takes a majority to vote no. If it came to a straight up-or-down vote, there are surely a few Republican senators facing electoral pressure from a moderate constituency who would jump ship.
I would say that almost everybody thinks that preventing the wrong kind of justices is part of the Senate’s job.
We just don’t all agree on what the right type of justices are.
My point precisely. Which is why accusing the senate of not doing its job, although tempting, is disingenuous.
Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, vulnerable in the upcoming election, has said that an Obama nominee deserves a hearing. Seems the first hole in the dike to me.
But the point is the people who don’t want a particular inclination of judge are already going to vote republican- so that’s preaching to the choir. In an election, the trick is to persuade the majority of the approximately 20% swing voters in the middle to vote your way. Those are the ones the republicans have to persuade that obstructionism is valid, and those are the ones who don’t feel deeply that stacking is more important than doing their duty in a reasonable time.
No, it’s not. You can’t possibly form any view as to whether a nominee is “the right type of justice” if you fail to consider the nominee at all. And a refusal to consider any nominee from a particular president expresses a stance on the president, not a stance on the nominees.
A Senate which systematically fails to consider nominations submitted to it by the President is analogous to a court which systematically fails to consider the cases that come before it. Neither of them is doing their job.
Nonsense. It’s perfectly possible to form the view that a minimal qualification for “the right type of justice” is that he or she not have been appointed by a President of the opposite party.
Again, try selling that point of view to middle of the road uncommitted swing voters. That’s the trap.
No, it isn’t. Just as it is the job of the Senate to consider nominations submitted to it, it is the job of the President to make nominations. You can’t defend a stance that a candidate is unfit on the basis of having been nominated by the person - the only person - whose business it is to nominate candidates.
If a senator wants a one-party state, he (or she) should be a mensch and say so. I think we both know how the voters would react.
That’s too much work for me. I’d just as soon stick with obtaining the equivalent result by endorsing the view that a minimal qualification for “the right kind of President” is that he or she does not belong to the opposite party.