Skip to main content

View Diary: Justice Thomas Gets One Right (130 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  and that would make him/her unqualified, (none)
    without knowing Who Else Has Been Nominated.

    So again I ask, why must we know who else will be nominated in order to confirm Rioberts?

    Of course, i would say that Originalism/textualism is within the mainstream of judicial thought.

    •  The Point Is (none)
      Either you do not ask the question (so you don't know or don't care about the answer) or the nominee misleads you (e.g., says the Constitution is a major factor in analyzing cases, but never says the Bible is the determining factor).  That is why the hearings are important.

      As to the two nominee scenario, one argument would be that when there have been two vacancies at the same time, the precedent has been to nominate successors to both.  

      The second argument would be that if both nominees are originalists (whatever that means), the Senate should know whether originialism will become the predominant philosophy of the Supreme Court.  

      Finally, there are notions of diversity for the Supreme Court--regional, male/female, race and ethnicity, and background (legal or otherwise).    

      •  don't buy it (none)
        Either you do not ask the question (so you don't know or don't care about the answer) or the nominee misleads you (e.g., says the Constitution is a major factor in analyzing cases, but never says the Bible is the determining factor).  That is why the hearings are important.

        Of course, I'm not debating that. My whole question related to the need to know the name of the 2nd nominee in before voting on the first.

        As to the two nominee scenario, one argument would be that when there have been two vacancies at the same time, the precedent has been to nominate successors to both.  

        I'd like to see the precedents. These vacancies did not occur at the same time, but about 2 months apart, so I'm not sure if those other cases are similar. And of course there is no requirement, sounds like it was simply customary.

        The second argument would be that if both nominees are originalists (whatever that means), the Senate should know whether originialism will become the predominant philosophy of the Supreme Court.  

        They'll know when Bush nominates the 2nd person.  And if they want to prevent it, vote against #2. Any position of the form `I will vote against Roberts because of some attribute of #2' is idiocy. If #2 is objectionable, then vote against that person, not Roberts.

        Finally, there are notions of diversity for the Supreme Court--regional, male/female, race and ethnicity, and background (legal or otherwise).    

        Here we go again, I'm voting against Roberts because #2 is not Hispanic/female. I am not voting based on Roberts' qualifications. Considering that Roberts does not alter the diversity of the court at all, this also seems silly.

        •  If you read my linked diary, (none)
          you would know there is no intention of denying Roberts the nomination.  It's about strategy.  It puts pressure on BushCo, and they can respond any way they like.  But the strategy effectively removes "judicial philophy" from the debate.  It then becomes a debate about fairness and retaining the balance, two frames we could have argued very effectively.

          The rhetoric of the right wing is being fixed around the policy of disinformation.

          by MoronMike on Mon Sep 12, 2005 at 09:22:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I did read it (none)
            And it also offers no reason why the 2 names Must be coupled. It offers reasons why the Democrats would like them coupled.

            I really liked this section...

            "By using the coupling strategy, Democrats would be seen my main street America as facilitators, not obstructionists, by giving Roberts a fair hearing and an up or down vote, but ONLY if we know who is going to be nominated for Sandra Day O'Connor's vacancy.  It's a more-than-fair trade.  Let them tell America why it's such a bad idea."

            Roberts deserves a fair hearing and an up or down vote. That is the job of the Senate. They can try to demand concessions in order to do their job, but it ain't gonna make them look like facilitators. I'd love to see the Democrats try to overplay that hand.

            Bush says no and the Democrats proceed to not give Roberts a fair hearing. That would be amusing to observe.

        •  You Don't Seriously Believe (none)
          That there are no qualified female candidates for the Supreme Court, do you?  I don't believe in quotas, but there is something to be said for having a Supreme Court that reflects America.

          To answer your question on multiple vacancies, the last time two seats were open at the same time was in 1971 when Justice Black and Justice John Marshall Harlan (the younger) retired.  Their successors were Justices Powell and Rehnquist.  Their nominations were announced within days of each other.

          Chief Justice Burger was succeeded through the nomination of Justice Rehnquist to become Chief.  Concurrently, Antonin Scalia was nominated four days later.

          Having recently interviewed a number of candidates, it seems unlikely that President Bush really needs the time.  My view is that President Bush does not want any spillover from another nominee to Judge Roberts.  So much for those concerns about 4-4 deadlocks.

          •  course not (none)
            You Don't Seriously Believe That there are no qualified female candidates for the Supreme Court, do you?  

            Certainly there are qualified chick judges. I'm holding out for Ann Coulter if they can find her a nice mini-robe :)  

            But is the most qualified candidate a woman? If the answer to that question is no, then the next nominee should be a man. Simply pick the best person.

            Do you want a less qualiifed judge who has more diverse 'plumbing'?

            I don't believe in quotas, but there is something to be said for having a Supreme Court that reflects America.

            well since you have not quota, then one XX chromosome on the court is just as diverse as two.

            It is of course impossible to have 10 people that reflects America in more than one or two demographics. And of course there are ways in which we DON'T want the court to reflect America.

            We don't want murderers, pedophiles, comatose, racists, adolescents or the mentally retarded as justices.

            I would prefer that all the justices be wealthy since that would indicate some level of competence in life.  The percentage of lawyers on the court seems to be quite out of proportion to the population.

            Given the pool of people who have the educational and intellectual qualifications, it's going to be a lot of white guys.

            To answer your question on multiple vacancies, the last time two seats were open at the same time was in 1971 when Justice Black and Justice John Marshall Harlan (the younger) retired.  Their successors were Justices Powell and Rehnquist.  Their nominations were announced within days of each other.

            How about their resignations? Were they at the same time or 6 weeks apart as in this case?

            Chief Justice Burger was succeeded through the nomination of Justice Rehnquist to become Chief.  Concurrently, Antonin Scalia was nominated four days later.

            Again, not quite the same since there is only 1 new court member there. If those are all the precedents, then it seems there isn't really any long-standing custom to be followed at all.

            Having recently interviewed a number of
            candidates, it seems unlikely that President Bush really needs the time.  My view is that President Bush does not want any spillover from another nominee to Judge Roberts.  So much for those concerns about 4-4 deadlocks.

            And since O'Conner will remain on the court, there won't be any 4-4 deadlocks. Bush would be wise to not name the next choice too soon just to avoid these shenanigans and annoy all the right people.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site