The Washington Post reported yesterday that President Bush will renominate 20 previously blocked judges.
The president’s list includes seven appeals court candidates whose nominations were stalled on the Senate floor by Democrats, who said the nominees’ conservative views were out of the mainstream. The other nominations never made it to the full Senate.
The Democrats blocked these nominees because they knew that the full Senate would have voted to approve them.
Do the Dems mean to say that that a majority of the Senate is “out of the mainstream”? What about their constituents, and the 51% of the voters who supported the president? Are they “out of the mainstream” too?
What kind of stream is this? Sounds like an oddly gerrmandered one that meanders in such a way that only Democrats are in the middle of it.
‘Do the Dems mean to say that that a majority of the Senate is “out of the mainstream”? ‘
The nominees can be different than the people who would approve them. note that gore voted to approve scalia
Would it be responsible of Democrats to rubber stamp every selection Bush makes because he won by a slim margin in the election? Should Bernard Kerik have been beyond scrutiny, since Bush received 51% of the vote?
–Cobra
Would it be responsible of Democrats to rubber stamp every selection Bush makes because he won by a slim margin in the election?
No. They have the right to vote – up or down – on every nominee. And the margin of Bush’s win is not relevant to this issue.
Actus – Do you think current Dems approve of Gore’s vote for Scalia? Do you think Gore would vote for Scalia again? I suspect it is current Dems, not I, most in need of remembering Gore’s Scalia vote.
Cobra – I do not think it would necessarily be irresponsible for Dems to vote for every Bush nominee, just as it would not necessarily have been irresponsible for Repubs to vote for every Clinton nominee. But neither do I think they have any obligation to do so. What I think they all do, or should, have is an obligation at least to make sense and, although this may be asking too much, to be honest. My post was so short that I hoped you, actus, and others of your persuasion might have noticed that I didn’t criticize the Dems for opposing any or all of Bush’s nominees. What I said is that the reason they gave for doing so makes no sense.
The “out of the mainstream’ complaint is both dishonest and nonsensical.
‘Actus – Do you think current Dems approve of Gore’s vote for Scalia? Do you think Gore would vote for Scalia again? I suspect it is current Dems, not I, most in need of remembering Gore’s Scalia vote.’
I think current dems have seen the error of not standing up to right wing extremists.
I think John has taken a cheap shot (a VERY GOOD cheap shot) at the Democrats. Liberals have long arrogantly presumed that their point of view is the mainstream (and the inevitable future of America). Their position on judges has been that those ignorant rubes who have non-liberal ideas cannot understand that and therefore continue to elect representatives to Congress that won
‘Liberals have long arrogantly presumed that their point of view is the mainstream (and the inevitable future of America). ‘
When it comes to preserving roe v. wade it is.
actus says humbly.
The mainstream democrats refer to is a urine stream. If you analyze the urine you will find many gonococcal and chlamydia cells. If a judge is not in this mainstream, he cannot be approved.
It is a type of litmus test.
Next, someone cleverly denies getting into a contest. Or argues about mixing a metaphor. Such liberal verbal byplay here would obscure what is really a good issue. Liberals want a liberal judge who will make liberal rulings, but they recognize the weakness of that position in the marketplace. Judges are supposed to be unbiased (whatever that means in the context of the Supreme Court). There is enough of a shred of that concept left that liberals do not want to openly state their intention to have only liberal judges who will make liberal rulings appointed. Hence, this
I think current dems have seen the error of not standing up to right wing extremists.
When it comes to preserving roe v. wade it is.
Well done actus, you certainly have learned how to repeat the Democrat talking points. However, there are intelligent people who read this blog, so unless you have no desire to try to support your position, it really is necessary for you to make a logical argument in favor of your position.
The problem with the Democrat position on the judicial appointments is not that they don
One of the points to consider as well is that these appointees have, in I believe every instance, been rated as well-qualified by the ABA screening committee. That was, as I recall, the liberal Democrat gold-standard. So there can be no questioning the fact that the nominees are entitled to be voted upon based upon the merits of their candidacy.
If the Democrats want to control the judicial philosoiphy prevalent on the federal courts in the US, I suggest they pursue a strategy of WHINNING PRESIDENTIAL AND SENATORIAL ELECTIONS rather than using parliamentary tactics to thwart the will of the President and the Constitutionally defined majority required to confirm judges.
‘Since the American electorate has voted into office these
Well actus, no one can say that you don’t know how to stay on topic. However, you seem to be a little confused about the election process. As a public service I will explain it to you. And don’t worry, I will explain it very carefully so that even a Democrat can understand. The electorate has voted for a majority Republican House of Representatives and Senate, as well as a majority of the Governors and the Presidency, so clearly, misguided as they must be, the people wanted Republicans in charge. Thus, since Republicans are the choice of the electorate they cannot, by definition, be out of the mainstream. Are you with me so far or would you like me to repeat it? Now these same Republicans who were the choice of the electorate have chosen who they want to be appointed to the judiciary. Now here comes the tricky part so pay attention. According to you, these mainstream Republicans have decided to nominate people who have a different position than they have. That doesn’t make any sense now does it? The correct answer of course is that they nominated people with their own judicial philosophy. As much as you may not like it, that is the choice of the electorate.
While I am enlightening you on the electoral process, let me address one more point that you see confused about. The current law of the land is that abortion is legal. The only way that can change is if the Supreme Court changes its position (or for completeness sake a Constitutional Amendment is passed). No lower court judge can overrule Roe vs. Wade. Since all of these judicial nominations are for lower federal courts, they can have no effect on Roe vs. Wade. In other words save that red herring for the next Supreme Court nomination.
‘The electorate has voted for a majority Republican House of Representatives and Senate’
I understand. Its just that between a mainstream that equates 2 wyoming senators with 2 NY senators [the senate’s role is what we are discussing], and another that ranks all americans evenly, I think the latter is a more accurate representation of the mainstream. Sorry.
Actus, you are really grasping at straws by trying to prove that the election results are not indicative of the political wishes of the electorate. What does the fact that there are two Republican Senators from Wyoming vs. two Democrat Senators from New York have to do with what we are talking about? The fact that there are two Senators from each state, regardless of population, is in our constitution. Are you indicating that we should change our form of government? Now that is really out of the mainstream. If, however, you are trying to prove that Democrat Senators come from states with a greater percentage of the electorate than Republican Senators do, then at a minimum you should do the math. Simply picking two states doesn’t prove it. And just in case you actually go through the trouble to do it, you should also determine the actual number of votes for all of the Democrats Senators vs. the Republican Senators, not just which states they were elected in. After all you are trying to show which party really has the support of the electorate. However, since the House of Representatives is also Republican, it would seem to indicate that Republicans are supported by the majority of the electorate. So we are back to where we started.
By the way, I love the way you have reserved to yourself the right to decide what is in the mainstream. It is convenient to be able to state that any policy that you are against is out of the mainstream. However, that begs the question. Also, given your argument above, you are clearly confusing majority with mainstream.
actus, if it were the House and not the Senate that had the responsibility of confirming judges, do you think the breakdown would be much different? Representatives do “represent” districts of roughly equal population, so the NY-vs.-WY problem doesn’t arise. But . . . I really think everyone Bush has nominated so far would pass an up-or-down vote in the current House. Don’t you?
‘Actus, you are really grasping at straws by trying to prove that the election results are not indicative of the political wishes of the electorate.’
Election results are indicative of a lot of wishes. In the case of judicial confirmations, it also adds in the complexity that these wishes are weighed and filtered according to the senatorial system that allocates the same number of senators to wyoming
It also just seems thickheaded to say that anyone in office automatically represents the mainstream on any particular issue.
I haven’t reserved any right to say what the mainstream is, but i don’t think its too wrong to presume that a national poll that says that people support roe v. wade is more indicative of the mainstream on this issue than the results of elections which may be about a whole host of other issues and is filtered by other things — including gerrymanders.
actus, the difficulty with polls asking whether Roe v. Wade should be upheld is that a really shocking fraction of our citizenry thinks that if Roe is overturned abortion would automatically become illegal. Whereas the most that could happen is that the state abortion statutes ca. 1973 would come back into force — and not only were some of them quite liberal, but I suspect that all of them would be held void due to desuetude, and states would consequently have to draft new laws. If what the public wants is substantially the Roe regime, then there’s no reason it wouldn’t get it. State politicians aren’t notorious for their courage in bucking alarmed and vocal majorities.
Whether Roe is good law and whether abortion should be legal (and under what circumstances) are completely different and separable questions. I am afraid that the mainstream media — and the pollsters — have done everything they can to conflate them.
An excellent point Michelle. This issue has been used as a scare tactic by the Democrats to attempt to get the women
‘actus, the difficulty with polls asking whether Roe v. Wade should be upheld is that a really shocking fraction of our citizenry thinks that if Roe is overturned abortion would automatically become illegal.’
And I suppose the same charge of unfamiliarity could be levelled at those who claim that the doings of the results of our electoral system are the definition of the wishes of the mainstream on any particular issue.
‘The funny thing is we have had Republican Presidents 19 of the 31 years since Roe vs. Wade was decided, and they have not nominated Supreme Court Justices who would overturn the law.’
3 justices on this court (white has left) were in the minority in Casey. A minority which was busily writing a majority to overturn Roe when Kennedy quit, and switched to the side that upheld Roe. The Dissenting Opinion written by Renquist, joined by White, Scalia and Thomas, contains: “We believe Roe was wrongly decided, and that it can and should be overruled..”
funny thing indeed.
The problem that I have with the Democrats over selection of judges, whether conservative or liberal, is not how Senate and Republican Democrats vote. It is that they have used various legal-but-certainly-not-moral methods to prevent many of these nominations from even coming to a vote. So the Senate and House don’t even get a say; only a minority of members in Committees controlled by Democrats. That is the crime, in my book.
Let the Congress vote to accept or reject the President’s nominees. Stop playing behind-the-scenes games.
‘So the Senate and House don’t even get a say; only a minority of members in Committees controlled by Democrats. That is the crime, in my book.’
The constitution says the house gets no say whatsoever.
actus,
And I suppose the same charge of unfamiliarity could be levelled at those who claim that the doings of the results of our electoral system are the definition of the wishes of the mainstream on any particular issue.
Well, no, of course they aren’t. But you’re ignoring my point. Polls asking people when they themselves would like abortion to be legal tend to produce a broad consensus (60% or so) for something more restrictive than Roe allows — something like freely-available first-trimester abortions, a general ban after that except for certain narrowly-defined exceptions. Poll the same people and ask them whether Roe ought to be overturned, and they’ll mostly say no, because they think that if Roe is overturned, abortion will be banned, period.
Of course, polling the people on whether a Supreme Court decision is correct is, or at least ought to be, absurd anyway. The poll can’t measure whether the people think the decision was correct in law, only whether they like the result. I have read arguments by people convinced that the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s subsequent interpretation of it positively require the decision in Roe; I’ve read others who think that’s nonsense. But that question is entirely severable from whether Roe’s scheme is good, or right, or moral. One is a matter of law, the other a matter of policy, or ethics, or something else quite distinct from law. The people being polled haven’t the foggiest idea, in general, of the legal arguments for and against Roe. Their interest is in whether abortion should be legal, and, if so, at what stage and under what conditions.
“The people being polled haven’t the foggiest idea, in general, of the legal arguments for and against Roe. Their interest is in whether abortion should be legal, and, if so, at what stage and under what conditions.”
I agree. I also think that judicial appointments are the democratic check on the judicial branch, to make sure that it conforms to policy.
actus,
I agree. I also think that judicial appointments are the democratic check on the judicial branch, to make sure that it conforms to policy.
That is, the law ought to be whatever the policy-makers want it to be. Not, mind you, what the people want, but what the policy-makers want. You can call that a “democratic check” if you like, though I’ve seldom heard a more cynical joke.