Maybe I should have said most fit or best fit. In a joking way, I’ve often wondered why the Senate doesn’t just publish a list of candidates they would approve and have the Prez appoint one of them. Of course, all that would do is move the arguing to the Senate alone.
Even that is going to be a split decision in favor of the majority party. Is Scalia-clone more fit than Kagan? Lotta righties say yes. Lotta lefties say no. Who has the God’s Eye View to resolve the issue?
Harriet Meiers was “minimally qualified” for the job, too. Doesn’t mean I didn’t want the Democrats voting her nomination down.
Obama won the election, but Hatch won one too. I don’t really give a fuck if he says boo to this particular goose.
Anybody remember Robert Bork? Clarence Thomas?
Hatch is hardly alone in making political philosophy a cornerstone of SCOTUS congressional confirmation or rejection.
Remember Bork? Hell, I read his damn book, did my heart good, listen to him piss and moan about how the hippies destroyed his world! Knowing he hates my guts with all the black fury of a constipated Calvinist makes my heart soar like an eagle.
Thanks for reminding me!
Is there really such thing as a political movement in America for whom Orrin Hatch is not conservative enough?! :eek:
Ha! I’m about as rational as you are.
:dubious: Results are what the law is all about, on the judicial side no less than on the political/legislative side. Every judge in America is rightly expected to give “public policy arguments” a place on the scale, and none such are based on value-formulations any less nebulous than “social justice.” Jeez, did you get your law degree from the University of Phoenix, or what?!
Well, he has consistently failed to author, sponsor, and guide to passage All Weapons of Every Type Are Now Legal For All Citizens Not Convicted of a Felony and Legalized Dueling Act, so I say he’s a candy ass liberal on guns.
Ah, yes, a subject near and dear to my own heart.
For the record, Ayn Rand was scornful of them too. Link (approx. 0:40)
It’s flattering to find oneself in such illustrious company. 
Quick question - when he was a senator Barack Obama voted against the confirmations of Justices Alito and Roberts.
Was that an abuse of his office or an appropriate vote?
I join the opinion of my colleague Oakminster, but write separately to address this comment. The roles of judge and legislator are quite different.
The legislator is subject to votes of approval every two or six years. The judge is getting a lifetime appontment.The legislator is supposed to create new law. The judge is supposed to interpret the law legislators have made.
Finally, the legislator is supposed to be guided by political goals. The judge is supposed to be guided by the law, period.
So you are saying Republicans are no better than Democrats?
The ACLU also declined to support Alito’s nomination; it was the second time ever that they refused to do so.
No, there is no constitutional requirement that she be a lawyer.
Nor does the Constitution set the boundaries of the Senate’s “advise and consent” role in confirmations. The Senate may confirm or reject a nominee for whatever reasons seem good to it. Just like an impeachable offense is whatever the House decides it is – that is intended to be a political decision, not a judicial one.
And a case could be made that a certain check-and-balance role here is both legitimate and desirable. I’m sure Robert Bork was a lawyer in good standing, etc., but thank Og he wasn’t confirmed! :eek:
Wrong. Take the Santa Fe case for example. Is it a good thing for people not to take guns around schools? Sure, that’s a good thing. Is that something that the federal government can pass a law to forbid? That is a question that should be decided solely on the basis of what the Constitution says, not on whether or not it is a good thing for such a law to exist.
Where did you get yours?
You will not see such a case come before an appellate court without plenty of values-based public-policy arguments in the briefs, and probably in both sides’ briefs.
University of Maryland at Baltimore.
That was different!
That time, it was to save the Republic/Constitution/Freedom of Life/The Children!
Now, it’s the teabaggers terrorizing…everybody!!!
Best wishes,
hh