Wednesday, July 06, 2005

SCOTUS Shuffle

Never mind the debate of Justice O'Connor's replacement. Alex at Pstupidonymous lists as many 5 Justices soon to be retiring.

And you all thought the 2004 elections were a wild ride!

So what are my thoughts on the Supreme Court nominations? Simple. Referring to our Constitution as a guide, the President nominates and the Senate offers 'advise and consent'. Pretty simple, huh?


Of course, advice and consent comes into varying interpretation. People are quick to point out President Washington had one of his own Supreme Court nominees, Benjamin Fishbourn, rejected by the Senate. Whether it was because of political stance or sanity is left for the historians to debate; clearly, President Washington was a thorough enough of a leader and statesman not to have to nominated anyone who would have put the nation at any risk.

This blog has discussed filibusters in a few different posts. Clearly, they were never intended to be used when a judicial nominee had popular support (not to be confused with Abe Fortas).

Despite the rhetoric, the following is true:

  • President Bush won the election.
  • Twice.
  • The House of Representatives has a decidedly Republican Party majority.
  • The Senate has a Republican Party majority; not a decisive as the House, but a majority nonetheless.
  • The numbers of Republican Governors grows with nearly every election cycle.

The mandate exists, and it is clear. 30 years ago and more, the Political Makeup of the Congress was decidedly different than today. Then it was decidedly Left leaning, today it is decidedly Right leaning. This cannot be disputed.

The President has a Constitutional role to leave his imprint on the nation, bolstered by his re-election. The Senate has their job of 'advise and consent'; so long as both sides agree to play fairly -- President Bush to nominate a Judicial candidate that is capable of fair rendering of justice in accordance to the original intent of Constitution -- and the Congress to decide if said nominees are capable of the same.

There is no need for a 'war' from either side. No need to repeat the circus that was Judge Robert Bork's or Justice Clarence Thomas' hearings. Stick to the facts, stick to the Constitution, and the nation will be better for it.

This is my call to both sides: abandon the terms 'war over the Court'; it won't play well on either side. Use the Constitution as your guide.

Pretty simple, huh?

And then we can hear arguments on Justice Souter's home...

Sphere: Related Content
DiggIt!Add to del.icio.usAdd to Technorati FavesFacebook