Constitution - 10 Partisanship - 8
Posted by Andy on January 24th, 2006
Samuel Alito’s nomination has been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee on a straight party line vote. It is off to the floor now. If the party lines and proimises hold up, if I’m not mistaken, Alito will be confirmed 56 yeahs to 44 neahs. Will the Democrats deploy their own nuclear option to appease their base/activists/source of money?
Will they do it? Time will only tell, but I’m just waiting for them to try.
Frist, you better have those 7 spineless Republicans back on board!
Sphere: Related Content
January 24th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Explain why, when Republicans vote the party line, it’s upholding the Constitution, but when Democrats do, it’s partisan?
We’re not comparing oranges to apples, here. When either party votes along party lines, it’s partisan.
(I assume you also supported the Roberts vote as a win for the Constitution, despite the recent Oregon-marijuana case in which he joined the dissent, which would have taken the case from the states. Sort of an anti-federalist, anti-small-r-republican stance, don’t you think?)
January 24th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
The difference is that when Republicans were offered the same opportunity with a justice who was just as much if not more on the “liberal side of the mainstream” as Alito is on “conservative of the mainstream”, the Republicans stuck to the Constitutional doctrine of an independent judiciary and put Ginsberg through with only 2 no votes.
As much Republicans dreaded the idea of a top ACLU attorney on the bench, they couldn’t state that she wasn’t qualified. Only that they expected they wouldn’t agree with how they expected her to rule. Not agreeing with expected judicial rulings is NOT grounds for disapproval.
The constitutional doctrine of an independent judiciary, by definition means that they way a justice is expected to rule CANNOT factor into the advice and consent process.
The Republicans have upheld it with both Dem nominees since Judge Bork was, well, Borked. The Democrats have not done it with the last 3 Republican nominees and 4 of the last 5.
The reason is clear. The Democrats know that on issues like marriage, late-term abortion, parental notification and others, they can’t win in the arena of public opinion. They need control of the courts to rule against majority opinion in order to advance their platform.
As a side note, I think conservatives have a better grasp on the constitutional role of a justice, than liberals (generally speaking). It is not a justice’s job to decide what would be “best for society”, or what is “fair”, only what is constitutional. I think that misunderstanding or differing interpretation is at the heart of the entire issue.
January 24th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Great points, Nordeaster. I’ll add: there is an obvious, blatant difference between voting party lines on legislation, vs. voting party lines on whether a judge is qualified for the Supreme Court. To say these are the same is foolish, dishonest, or both.
Senators’ roles are to read the rulings, ask the questions, debate, and determine if the man is qualified - meaning rational, fair, objective, non-activist…. PERIOD.
Can the Dem Senators honestly say they did this? NO! Which one can look him / herself in the mirror and say Alito is non-qualified?
NONE.
Where wee these Dem Senators when their friends at the ABA gave Alito the highest possible rating of a unanimous “well-qualified rating? I guess their “gold standard” doesn’t apply when it doesn’t serve their interests.
Where were these Dem Senators when staunch Democrat supporters who have worked with Alito and tried cases in front of him, talked in glowing testimonials to the fairness, decency, objectivity, and scholarship of Alito? Oh, yeah…remember? … they showed the disrespect of bailing out on these testimonials by people who traveled far, and deserved much more respect than the Dems showed them.
Apparently Teddy and the gang were worried about missing happy hour…. for all I know, that may be where some of their best-coordinated baseless smear campaigns are concocted and coordinated.
Last point: where in the Constitution or in any precedent is anything stated about rejecting a judge because:
” the time isn’t right for this judge”
” he’s not a clone of the judge he’s replacing”
These are totally new requirements cut out of whole cloth for the Dem’s convenience.
So I ask Dems: Is this the precedent you want Senate to set? To turn it purely over to partisan ideology? Whichever party has one more vote in the Senate gets to push through any nonobjective, partisan judge they want? (you KNOW that doesn’t describe Alito). If thats the precedent, good luck ever getting another Ginsburg confirmed. Thanks to the “ideas bankrupt leftists” that have too much power in your party, you’ve lost control of the Senate for as far as the eye can see.
Luckily for you though, the Republicans have too much integrity to stoop to the Dems level of partisan dishonesty in the confirmation process.