Not only that, it’s what they should do. I’d like to know what I’m getting with a judge, but you have to admit the obvious: it would not only be a bad idea for them personally to give those opinions, it wouldn’t be good from a judicial standpoint.
Well, I tend to find any attempt at a strict legal philosophy based upon, among other things, ideologically dubious criteria like retrograde mind-reading extreme in itself (not that Scalia always fits the “originalist” ideal, according to some). Couple that with Scalia’s often inflexible and anachronistic ideology, which oozes through many of his arguments, and which apparently informs his beliefs about the Founders intent (e.g. “govt. derives its authority from God”) seems sufficiently extremist to me to warrant the label. One man’s extremism is another’s moderation, though, so YMMV, I guess. I think Roberts may just be more “humble” than this, as he suggests. I take “humble” to mean a lack of Scalia-esque stridency in his judgements.
As for Scalia’s confirmation, I honestly don’t know anything about his nomination hearings. The difference in votes for-or-against between Scalia and Roberts may say as much or more about the times as about either justice. I guess the question I’d have in turn is “Would Scalia get a 98-0 vote today?” I personally don’t think anyone would get a 98-0 vote today. Since Bork and Thomas, I think the process of nominating judges, secretaries, what have you, is now automatically far more contentious, and there aren’t many Colin Powel’s in the running out there.
Bleh. I meant to type “philosophically dubious”…this place is sloooow today…
Actually, Scalia explicitlly eschews that form of originalism, and NEVER fits that “ideal”. His uses a textualist approach to determining original intent precisely because we cannot read the minds of the legistlators who drafted and voted for a given piece of legislation. I won’t send this thread off on another Scalia tangent, but I do think you are basing your judegement of him on an erroneous view of his judicial philosophy.
Could be. Got a link to a good summary of his judicial philosophy? Maybe a thread here where it’s been hashed out well.
And, uh…end hijack. 
Technically, as I read Marbury v. Madison, he doesn’t need to receive his commission, it just has to have been made.
This one got a little messy, but it’s a start.
Confirm end of hijack. Roger and out.
While this seems to be true to an extent, it only seems true for Republican nominations so far.
Stephen Breyer was confirmed by an 87-9 vote. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s vote was 96-3. These votes in favor were just as overwhelming as the Scalia vote, for practical purposes.
This indicates that Republican senators at this time viewed their role in the conformation process very differently than Democrats then and now. They seemed to concentrate on qualifications at this level, and ignored judicial philosophy as a consideration.
Those noble, noble guys. I’m sure they didn’t do the smart thing, either.
Oh, Mr. Moto. Caught you being ignorant. Let me help you. The reason Roth Bader Ginsburg was approved so overwhelmingly is because Clinton had a policy of allowing the Republican leadership to vet his nominees PRIOR to nominating them. No nasty surprises for the Republicans, see? I’ll bet Breyer was confirmed overwhelmingly for the same reason.
I’ll also bet the current advise and consent process would be VERY different in Bush did the same thing Clinton did. But of course he’s a stupid, arrogant asshole and doesn’t.
You may now apologize to the board for being so wrong.
Define vet, and tell us exactly how it worked. Because clearly the Republicans asked many, many questions of her which she refused to answer so there were indeed unknowns. Same thing with Roberts. But, as we all know, not answering questions is S.O.P. ever since the Democrats Borked Bork.
For all this cry over “litmus tests”, it’s the Democrats who are the party who have one-- say Roe v Wade should be overturned about you’re out. Even though many legal scholars, including plenty on the left, agree that that decision was poorly argued.
Interesting that he came right out and said:
So, Roberts is qualified, but Obama will vote against him. 
Obama goes on to say that most justices, across the political spectrum, which reach the same decision 95% of the time, and in the 5% of cases where things aren’t quite so obvious:
A justice is supposed to go by his gut feel? He’s supposed to use his emotional response as an indicator of what the law is? When the going gets tough, the tough get in touch with their inner feelings? :dubious:
Glad to clarify. I think a cite would be more useful here. Here’s an article describing how Clinton worked with Republicans on judicial nominees. Nothing LIKE this from Bush, is there? Are you going to tell me that if Bush went through similar procedures with the Dems, their votes wouldn’t be different? You know they would.
Mr. “I’m a uniter, not a divider” is the most partisan president we have had in a long time. He would rather invest in solar energy than consult with or appoint to a key position (say inspector general to oversee the rebuilding of New Orleans) a member of the Democratic Party. (And no, Zell Miller doesn’t count.)
Got an unbiased source with an analysis? Or shall I counter with some analysis from National Review? You could very well be right about Clinton’s process, I’d just like to see a straight up analysis from a source w/o an agenda.
And there’s also the small matter of the Republicans controlling the Senate while Clinton was in office, so he would have **had **to handle things differently if he wanted to get anything done.
When you have Senators who say what Obama said and still won’t vote against the guy, I frankly don’t see what purpose consultation would serve. It boggles the mind. If he doens’t like the guy’s politics, then just come out and say so.
Yeah, it’s what I thought. He wouldn’t vote for Roberts bacause Bush nominated him. He practically blows the guy but laments the fact that Roberts didn’t take away his ability to judge by telling the whole world how he would rubber stamp everything. :rolleyes:
He’s joined the ranks of the bubbleheads all right.
I must protest. I think the criticisms of Sen. Obama’s decision are unfair. Here is what he said:
Obama clearly states that he is concerned about how Roberts might rule on the small minority of cases that may, nonetheless, have a significance disproportionate to their number, because the law is not sufficiently clear to provide independant guidance. As the judge must rule somehow, it is the meaning they bring to the bench that literally shapes law for the future. It is the scenerio where strict originalist or textualist (or whatever it’s called) philosophy is simply insufficient. What would Roberts do? That is Sen. Obama’s quandry.
I see nothing in his statement that would suggest he has chosen to vote against confirming Roberts merely out of partisanship, merely because he is a Bush nominee. Quite frankly, consider that a willfully ignorant and patantly partisan statement, given the clear content of Obama’s explanation.
Sen. Obama is clearly saying that while he has no doubt Roberts is Supreme Court caliber, he has considered the available evidence more convincing than Roberts’ vague reassurances, and concluded Roberts will likely rule on the sorts of cases Obama cares about most in an unacceptable manner. He expresses deep respect for his colleagues who do not share his fears, and clearly expresses hope they are unfounded (as do I).
He also rips Sen. Leahy’s detractors on the Left, and makes a highly principled request:
My scales have tipped, however slightly, for Roberts myself, but the concerns about Roberts Obama raised are legitimate and serious ones, and his eloquent and principled call for gravity and conscience in making a decision as monumentally important as confirming a Supreme is, in my estimation, deserving of the term “statesmanly”.
Really? You quoted the relevant part yourself:
So Obama thinks he is exceptionally qualified and will be an excellent judge in the future, but declines to vote for him because of “the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power”, i.e. the Bush Administration.
So yeah, a reasonable person would see that he refused to vote for Roberts because he’s Bush’s boy. If he wanted to say that he could have just gotten to the point instead of hiding it inside all of the knob polishing.
Well, Obama was referring in no small part to documents produced a long before Bush was President, so the issue obviously isn’t limited to the fact that he’s a Bush nominee. If you tried to actually apprehend what he wrote , the issue is a concern he won’t rule to protect the weak from the abuses of the rich and powerful. That’s a problem the Bush administration has in spades, but what Obama is clearly citing can date back as far as the Reagan years. Apparently, he found the “just doing the job they asked me” explanation unconvincing, which is not unreasonable.