Republicans & Conservatives: Archives

Although I agree with a lot of points made, I hope partisanship does not play a role in this selection.I don’t care IF the Dems would have done this or not, the point is that it’s being done. The best person for the job should be selected period. The President doesn’t have to consult with the Dems. This is true, but getting advice never hurt anybody and in many cases gives more information that might have been overlooked. Looking at all candidates to find the right person for this job regardless of partisanship is not only smart, it’s the right thing to do. I only hope that this and even more bi-partisan cooperation can move foreward regardless of who is in control.

Actually, there is no limitation in the “advise” aspect of the constitution. It says that (President) “He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate …shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court,…”
That is By and With, the advice and consent. The president is obligated to, at least, listen to the advice from the Senate. He does not have to follow it, but he is obligated to hear it. Therefore, conversely, they are obligated to give it.
The idea that the Senate has to simply accept the nomination for vote without any conference with the president is nowhere in our constitution, and is not part of our government. The idea that the Republicans have been extolling that the Senate is only permitted to vote is ludicrous. It completely ignores the constitution, which is something that this republican senate does when it is convenient for them.

Well, I’d intended to write up a response but Cole beat me to it.

Interestingly, Bill Clinton sought advice from Orrin Hatch on his choices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was actually Hatch’s own suggestion..which likely contributed to Ginsburg sailing through the confirmation.

Not only does this President seem not to listen to the advice and consent of the Senate, this one seems so far to think it’s OK to pick from a pile that 1/2 of this nation feels to be radical, activist, extremist and just plain unacceptable.

Maybe that will change this time around since Karl is on the BBQ spit and Bush43 doesn’t have that much “political capital” left.
Rove v. Dobson, hmmm….

Advise and Consent. The Senate is supposed to represent the legislative branch’s check on what judges and appointees get put on the bench. You may view that as an inconvenience now, Nathan, but you’ll be wanting that when the political fortunes shift. You won’t want your folks taking the Democrat nominations lying down, if you don’t agree with them.

Getting the Senate’s consent before the confirmation process helps assure consent on the Senate floor at the conclusion of the hearings. Bush finally does something reasonable, and Republicans here are ticked off. Makes sense.

Cole, Dave,
That type of response is exactly why the Repubs. are getting to the “Why even try and work with them” attitude. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
I guess I just have the problem of being an optomist.

.

David,
Not all of us are ticked! By why the negative dig, “Bush finally does something reasonable”? Was it necessary?

Nathan,

You use the word “nominate”. This confuses me because by inference, nominate requaires a vote of some kind. Are you saying basically that the President can appoint whomsoever he wishes and it is just a courtesy to consult with the Senate.

If so, that is a great thing.

The difference, of course, was that Hatch was concerned about getting a smart, qualified candidate to the bench- which RBG was. Hatch was not concerned about litmus tests on abortion- or any other issue- which is why he was able to recommend someone who has been the second most consistent liberal vote on the court (and predictably so).

The situation now is much much different. There is no person who is as conservative as RBG was liberal that could get the support of the Democrat leadership. They would get labeled an “ideologue” or “out of the mainstream” or “divisive” or whatever word that the pollster say is the most effective on an ignorant public. Every name I have seen on the short list (other than Gonzales) is a qualified, long-standing, well-respected circuit court judge- any of them are just as qualified as RBG. Why wont the Democrats go to Bush and say “you know, Judge McConnell may be conservative, but he got unanimous support of over 100 faculty members, maybe of them liberal professors, in his confirmation hearings to the Circuit Court. He would be an excellent supreme court justice”? (http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/michaelmcconnellsupportletter.htm) The answer is simple- McConnell is pro-life.

If the Democrats would take their job seriously, as Hatch once did, they should have serious input as to who Bush will select. I have seen no signs that they are interest in that task. They want results, not qualified judges (and the same is true of conservative activist groups, of course). Do the Democrats have anyone of the stature of Orin Hatch- who cares more about getting the best person on the bench rather than just obtain certain results- I guess time will tell…

Have you ever noticed how when liberials talk bi-partisianship it means do it their way or they’ll wine.
I hope Bush nominates the person that is accually the best one for the job and not the one the liberials think is the best. Cause you know what they think is the best person for the job. One that will help them shred the consitiution.

Ron, what is your basis for the statement “when liberals talk bi-partisanship it means do it their way or they’ll whine”.

Harry Reid offered these as potential nominees: Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Mel Martinez of Florida, Mike DeWine of Ohio and Mike Crapo of Idaho.

And Democrats offered these names: U.S. Appeals judges Sonia Sotomayor and Ed Prado, and U.S. District Court Judge Ricardo Hinojosa, all of whom are Hispanic.

All of these individuals are conservative. Dean is concerned that offering up names might mean that extreme conservatives will start a smear campaign on these individuals, but, you have to start somewhere right?

Anyone against these names? (I actually don’t like Mel Martinez that much, but I’d be fine with him getting in)

Nathan,
Democratic presidents have routinely consulted with Republian senators to assure an easier nomination process. There’s nothing wrong with that.

But you are right, it is the Presidents privilege to nominate someone without any input. And it is the Democrats privelige to not allow that persaon a seat on the Supreme Court. It’s perfectly fine to complain about the dogmatic nature of both sides, however, I think our time would be better spent avoioding the confrontation and putting someone in that everyone can agree to. (i.e. What’s wrong with the names put forward above?)

Kevin,
I don’t see why quoting the constitution should cause the Republicans to have a “Why even try and work with them” attitude.
Advising the President on who would get a quick nod from the Senate is not wrong in any way. And as I said, the President doesn’t have to follow their advice. He can still nominate whoever he wants.
The Dems have advanced their acknowledgement that whoever the choice is will be on the conservative side of the middle, and that this would not be a problem in terms of approval. It’s how far to the conservative side that may cause some disagreement. That would occur even if the players were switched.
If Senators want to be active in their role in the process, as outlined in the constitution, so be it. Personally, I’d like to see them work more closely together across the aisle and with the Presidency on all issues. I’m tired of this partisanship. I’m talking about both parties, without blaming either one to the exclusion of the other.

I get nervous whenever Bush promises to be reasonable, because in my memory, Bush baits and switches us on an almost regular basis.

He’ll tell us he wants to be reasonable, we let him have his chance, then he comes out with some winger, who he claims to be moderate despite the obvious leanings of the candidate. Then when we criticize him for not doing as he promised, he tells us he gave us what we asked for: the chance to talk it over. Unfortunately, he doesn’t figure or doesn’t care that such involves a good faith taking into account of other people’s views.

I will believe Bush has given us a moderate candidate when he actually offers us one.

Julia- why have the Democrats not proposed a qualified circuit court judge who is as conservative as Ruth Bader Ginsburg was liberal? If you answer that question honestly, you will see that they are not actually trying to consult in the spirit of Orin Hatch…

Misha,
Are none of those people I named that conservative? I thought they were. Honestly, I don’t even know enough about Ruth Ginsburg to know if I’m making a good comparison. I know you are more familiar in this area than I am, so I trust your opinion. Although if you could provide me backup for your opinion so I can understand, I’d appreciate it.

I especially thought Ricarda Hinojosa might be a good one, since Pres Bush appointed him to his current judgeship. No?

Oh, I’m reading now that Edward Brado is the most conservative of those three. But he doesn’t compare on the flipside to Ginsburg? Of course, we’re replacing O’Conner. How does he compare to O’Conner?

This site says Ginsburg is a “moderate libertarian liberal” type. http://www.senatevote.com/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg.htm

I’m not vouching for their assessment, just passing it on for discussion.

RBG was a former ACLU lawyer, and was the first director the “women’s rights project.” If you look at her voting record, it has been second to only Stevens for its liberal-leanings. Including striking down partial birth abortion, voting against ANY limits on the government’s commerce clause power in Lopez, Morrison, and most recently, Raich (the medical pot case). She has also voted with the liberal wing of the court in affirmative action, campaign finance reform, and every other “big ticket” supreme court case. None of this is surprising to anyone- on the right expected her to vote otherwise when they approved her.

The people that have been proposed are either people who are either poorly known, so we do not know their record, or Senators from swing states with no real judicial experience.

There are a set of qualified conservative judges-Judge McConnell being one, Judge Roberts being another- who no one can accuse of lacking judicial temperment (as far as I have heard).

Also, I do not think that comparing the proposes justice to O’Connor is fair. Ruth Bader Ginsburg replaced Justice White- who was every bit a “moderate” as justice o’connor. He was also strongly liberal on the powers of the national government, but he was also against Roe v. Wade, against Miranda- so he was strongly conservative on those issues. Why is it now that Democrats have the right to demand that Justice O’Connor’s replacement be pro-choice, when Justice White’s replacement was so clearly pro-choice, even though he was against Roe v. Wade?

The reason I keep bringing up abortion is that this is really what this fight is all about. For example, I think those on the left are hoping that Gonzales will be appointed, because he is the most likely of the short list to be pro0choice. There are others on the short list that are going to be a lot more protective of civil liberties in the war on terror (which it is assumed Gonzales will not be), but that is not of concern. The real issue with all of this “consensus candidate” and “justice in the O’Connor mold” talk is just to get someone who will not overturn roe v. wade. notice that Orin Hatch had no such litmus test when he recomended RBG to Clinton.

I thought the feminist movements lobbied against Ginsburg because she wasn’t a strong pro-choice candidate. I mean, they did lobby against her because of their fear of where she really stood on abortion didn’t they?

I asked my dad about Ginsburg, and he said she was a straight-up liberal. Not extreme, but not really a moderate. He said she may have some slight moderate tendencies, but overall is a plain liberal. Breyer, the other Clinton nomination, definitelly leans more moderate. (he said) I know quoting my dad is not a convincing argument, but he is the most ethical, non-partisan person I know. He convinced me that the Bush nominee Pickering (who the Dems hated) was being wrongfully vilified.

So is it Kennedy and O’Connor with the swing votes, and then Souter, Beyer, Ginsburg and Stevens for the libs (in that order, from more moderate to more extreme?) Is that about right?

I tired to google that, I couldnt find anything on it- it might be true, I just dont have any evidence either way.

Who knows anything about Edith Jones? I’ve heard from a couple sources tonight that Bush has been talking to her and that she’s on a very short list of remaining candidates—one with only two people on it! I don’t know who the other one is, or if this is all just baseless rumor. But a female choice makes sense.

Sanger,

Link on Edith Jones…

http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/tGetInfo?jid=1194

Another more indepth link on her.

http://www.sctnomination.com/blog/archives/2005/06/profile_of_pote_7.html

Edith Jones seems well qualified, young enough, but likely would drive the left to climb the walls.

Exellent choice ! ( lol..just kidding…well..kinda)

And now people are talking about Edith Jones OR Edith Clement. Jeez.

Well, as long as Bush picks somebody named Edith, I’ll be happy.

Clement would sail through the confirmation process. The left would raise a little fuss, more to satisfy the base than to make any serious objection. Conservative background, but not much record. Looks like a good, safe choice.

Sanger,

I also looked up Edith Clement, I posted no links because she would be a “dream come true” for the left. Her views on roe V wade are miles left of most everyone now on the court.

I hope President Bush has better judgement than to nominate Clement. That would piss off sooo many Republicans, 2006 campaign donations would be held back in protest.

PHx8,

I read about some of clement’s judgements and statements about row V wade, you couldn’t get more pro- abortion than she is.

Julia, you wrote;

“I especially thought Ricarda Hinojosa might be a good one, since Pres Bush appointed him to his current judgeship. No? “

President Bush Also nominated Janis Rogers Brown, She would be another good choice?

We agree!

Ha, ha, Beagle. You know I was referring to the names the Democrats put forward. I don’t think there’s anyway you could imply that I somehow meant that Democrats would be happy with any judge Bush previously nominated. But he did nominate Hinojasa and Prado, so… there it is.

Misha: This is what I read “Much of the initial resistance to Ginsburg’s nomination came from within the feminist movement because she had expressed reservations about the reasoning of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade”, but it goes on to say that most individuals were won over that she would not knock it down. (I don’t want to be the source of spin, here). So, Ginsburg is a straight-up liberal (but not an extreme liberal).

It seems to me that Hinojasa and Prado are more conservative than O’Connor, and more moderate (on the right wing side) than Ginsburg is on the left wing side. However, they are the equiavalent of the other Clinton nominee Breyer. Would you say that’s accurate?

So I don’t think they are outrageous names to put forward. I guess we’ll just see if Bush’s nominee is more extreme than Ginsburg. That’ll be our “fairness” test.

Although, if Rehnquist does opt out during the Bush administration, can we expect hiim to be replaced by a conservative who is the equivalent of Beyer?

Beagle,
Yes, Clement might disappoint the right.

It won’t be Brown. Bad sign if Bush chooses a controversial nominee. That would indicate a desire for a very partisan, divisive, headline-grabbing fight; choosing a fight shows a need for keeping the Rove scandal (and other issues) out of the limelight.

Edith Jones is also being discussed. We’ll know tonight…

PHx8,

Well know by 9pm EST, look for something around 8pm. Anytime after 7pm est, Bush loves breaking up primetime network TV…lol

Just today with new info., I’ll bet ya a beer its Edith Jones.

If the nomination happens to be Edith Brown Clement, as many reporters are speculating, although she is known to be pro-choice, she has specialized in maritime legislation and has represented oil companies (surprise, surprise), as well as insurance companies and is a member of the Federalist Society. I’m sure that if she is the nominee, that both sides will have something to say. We, shall see tonight.

Beagle,
Well, it’s looking like I’d owe you a beer if I stuck to Clement. Supposedly the Senate Judiciary Committee is discouraging speculation that it will be Edith Clement.

Don’t know about Edith Jones, but you may be right, & if so I’m sure I’ll be hearing all about her…

Donna,

Treehugger isn’t nearly as much of a slam as “bunnyhugger”…lol

PHx8,

Did you check the links I posted about Edith Jones?

Lots of info there.

Why is Clement considered pro-choice?

I’ve read the quote from an earlier confirmation hearing in which she said that Roe vs. Wade was a settled question. But it’s pretty clear that she meant that it’s a settled question as far as a circuit court judge would be concerned. But that’s just stating the obvious, isn’t it? A lower court has to follow the rulings of the Supreme Court-duh.

Is there something else in her record to support the contention that she’s pro-choice? Links would be appreciated.

Beagle,
Thanks, checked out the links.

Sanger,
It would be a mistake to make assumptions- as you observe, Clement did her job as a judge, which does not necessarily reflect her personal opinions about about Roe v Wade.

Although…
Here’s a quote of Clement’s answer about Roe v Wade, from Daily Kos:

“Question 2C: Do you believe the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman’s right to have an abortion?

Answer: The Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion. The cases handed down by the Supreme Court on the right to abortion have reaffirmed and redefined this right, and the law is settled in that regard. If confirmed, I will faithfully apply Supreme Court precedent.”

So, it is apparently John C. Roberts according to the AP.

PHx8,

I shouldn’t have let todays hype of only females in the running have changed my opinion of a few weeks ago in another thread; I said then it would be a young, male, conservatve, little known to the general public.

I owe you a beer. That was a cheap bet anyway, I would have bought ya one anyway…lol

Beagle,
We’ll make it dutch treat, no way I saw Roberts as the nominee…

Phx8 and Beagle, Watchblog is a dating service now? I had no idea :).

Julia,

Ron, what is your basis for the statement “when liberals talk bi-partisanship it means do it their way or they’ll whine”.

EXPERIENCE!