Went over to RedState.org and read a few posts. Man, those people hate Bush as much as I do! They are INCREDIBLY pissed off. One of them actually called Bush a LIBERAL!!! Talk about name-calling.
This is great! The big tent may just be folding, folks.
I wish it would have happened 2 years ago…
Does anyone else think that this nomination is dead in the water besides me?
Doesn’t appear all that popular with anybody. Issue seesm to be how many Republicans will just bite down and salute Bush’s choice as the President’s perogative.
And this approach really pisses me off (as if anyone cares). Ther appointment of Supreme Court justices is not the President’s prerogative. A prerogative is an exlusive or special right, power or privilege. The President doesn’t have any such thing in justice appointments. The appointment in the specific words of the Constitution are made only “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.” The President has the prerogative of nomination, but not appointment.
That’s not really how it has been treated in our history, though.
Again, I’m reminded of the Byron White nomination, as I think it provides an interesting contrast. His confirmation hearing was taken up almost entirely by testimony by various bar associations. He answered questions for only a few minutes. and then he was confirmed by voice vote by the full Senate.
The whole thing took only a few hours.
Now, did the Democrats at the time fail in their responsibilities to advise and consent? How about the Republicans?
I personally hope Miers gets through, because if she doesn’t, Bush is going to nominate some hellish tirebiter of a troglodyke female conservative and let the hard right have their little fight with the Dem leadership in the Senate. I think this would energize the Dem base and scare the moderates and ensure Dem gains in 2006 and very likely a Dem presidential win in 2008, which is why Bush DIDN’T nominate a R-trog candidate initially. (Well, actually, I’m betting Bush personally nominated Miers out of cronyism, and Rove pushed her for the reasons I suggest.)
Depends on how much discussion there was among Senators, and between them and the President, prior to that point. Most business in Washington is not conducted on the official record, and the Constitution does not specify just how the advice part of “advise and consent” is to take place. Most Senate hearings of appointees to any federal officer job seem to be more ratifications of decisions already made, with a little coronation ceremony added in, than decisionmaking processes themselves.
[quote=Frostillicus[ Does anyone else think that this nomination is dead in the water besides me? [/quote]
No, nobody has good reason to vote for her yet, but nobody has good reason to vote against her yet, either. Even if she’s just another crony, it’s been decades since the Senate had enough responsibility to vote down a nominee, to the Court or elsewhere, just on the grounds of mediocrity (search “Senator Roman Hruska” for the classic quote on the subject).
Hmmmm. The implication here is that the historical development of methods for using the Constitutional requirements trumps the intent of the framers and the literal words of the document.
No. But you were certainly implying that constitutional requirements won’t be met unless Senators have a Bork or Thomas style hearing.
Both Bork and Thomas got full hearings from the Senate. What are you bitching about?
And I think you clearly said that just because few nominees are turned down it ratifies the belief that history grants the President the prerogative to name whomever he pleases as if the Supreme Court is just an adjunct of the Executive Department.
Sure, Bork and Thomas got hearings. Nasty ones.
I hardly think such nastiness is necessary for constitutional requirements to be observed. Yet you seem to be calling, in your posts, for adversarial hearings like this.
If I’m wrong here, please let me know. But that is the impression that I’m getting.
And you’re correct. History and the Constitution grant the President solely the right to name who he pleases to the Court. The Senate cannot name anyone. Their role is merely to ratify, or not, the President’s choice. Should they refuse to do so, they will have to act later on another of his choices, not one of their own.
Their roles aren’t equal here.
Well, Thomas was accused of sexual harassment. Should that just have been ignored? And Bork had some interesting legal ideas. Should those also have been ignored? As has been said over and over, this ain’t beanbag. These are important issues that affect every phase of the actions of people and all aspects need to be brought out.
Nasty is in the eye of the beholder. I, for example, can’t think of anyone nastier in action than Tom DeLay, or Carl Rove.
The roles aren’t equal at all. The President has the sole power of nomination. The Senate has the sole power of making the final appointment. The President’s sole power of nomination does not in any way mean that his selection should get automatic, or even easy, approval. Politicians go through some pretty nasty political fights to get their office. I see no reason to handle judicial appointments with kid gloves just because the President thinks they are nice people. If the nominee doesn’t want his character, intelligence and past actions exposed to the light he or she can’t always tell the resident, “Tnanks but no thanks.” The jobs are prestigious enough and for life assuming “good behavior” and I think there will be plenty of competent people who are willing to take the risk. After all, people have to have a pretty big egos to think they are qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.
P.S. I still think that post of yours means that the history of such appointments rules as to how appointments are made, no matter what the Constitution says.
And I’m not at all sure that you are all that right on the history.
Not one bit. I just wanted to point out that the Senate has always exercised its role to advise and consent. It has always met its constitutional responsibilities here.
You seemed to allude that it isn’t now, that the Republicans are rolling over. But if this is the case, how does that account for the easy confirmations of years past? Did the Democrats roll over for Kennedy when he appointed White?
And if they did, didn’t they fail to meet their constitutional obligations the same way you seem to feel Republicans are now?
Sometimes consent is the only advice given, or needed.
No, I objected to the description of the appointment process as the “president’s prerogative.” And I am of the opinion that it is quite possible that the Democrats were too easy on White. He was a great football player but I wasn’t at all impressed with him as a Supreme Court justicel
Now, I’ve heard it said amongst the Perfidious Liars [sup]TM[/sup] that Justice Thomas is of the opinion that the establishment clause applies only to the Federal government. Which means that states are free to establish churches if they so choose. A Mormon Utah, Lutheran Minnesota and so on and so forth.
This is an idea not “out of right field”, this is an idea orbiting a planet in a galaxy far, far away. Not just conservative, not merely reactionary, this is batshit.
We are given to understand that Mr. Thomas’ judicial thinking has a fervent admirer in GeeDubya. That he would have another just like him.
And further, he is thoroughly familiar with Ms. Meiers “judicial philosophy” and heartily approves.
So, anyway, has anyone heard anything about her opinions regarding precious bodily fluids?
Not really.
Thomas has indeed argued against incorporation of the establishment clause. As I’m sure you’re aware, many states had established religions well into the 1800s, but the practice seems to have died out on its own well before the enactment of the 14th amendment, and the SCOTUS decisions that incorporated various amendments.
Thomas differentiates between the incorporation of the free exercise clause of the 1st amendment (which is a right of the people) and the establishment clause (which is a restraint on Congress), saying that incorporation should be limited to individual rights, not restraints on Congres. Thus, he does support incorporation of the free exercise clause, but not the establishment clause. It’s not an unreasonable interpretation of section 1 of the 14th amendment:
At any rate, I think reasonable people can disagree about the relative merits of federalism wrt specific issues without invoking “batshit” as an argument. After all, we entrust state governments with quite a bit of sovereignty, even in this day and age.
n.b.: Don’t take this as my endorsement of Thomas’ view on this matter. I haven’t really studied it closely enough to decide which side of the federalism fence I’m on in this case. But, of all the things I fear from my state government, the idea that it might establish a religion isn’t so much at the bottom of the list, it isn’t even on the list.
I quite take your point, John, as to the actual practical effect of such a judicial viewpoint being largely moot. I do not believe it is remotely plausible that Mr. Thomas believes that such could be done, only that he believes it to be constitutionally kosher. It can be fairly regarded as an intellectual flight of fancy, without any real-world consequence to be dreaded. Similar to libertarianism, in that regard.
I gotta stop calling myself a libertarian, and leaving you those soft lobs across the plate. 
From now it’s: “I lean toward the libertarian view”, which is more accurate anyway.
But I won’t extend this hijack further, as it fits into a thread I want to start soon anyway. Hope to see you there!