home

Advice And Consent: A Final Word

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Supreme Court
Posted on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 11:43:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I have written a lot about the Senate's role of Advice and Consent for a President's judicial nominations. A final word of thanks to Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., has used debate over Sonia Sotomayor to argue that Democratic opposition to Bush administration judicial nominees reduced the deference GOP senators are now obliged to give a president's judicial picks, freeing them to oppose nominees on philosophical grounds.

(Emphasis supplied.) As I have written often, that is as it should be. Thank you Senator McConnell for making it the conventional wisdom.

Speaking for me only

< Laffer-ism | Friday Afternoon Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Advice And Consent: A Final Word | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I don't understand these people (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:17:03 PM EST
    Why is the GOP constantly trying to make this tit-for-tat argument that now it's ok for them to oppose judges on ideological grounds?  There is no one on the left even arguing with them!

    We blocked Bork on ideological reasons and we would do it again.  The reason we didn't unanimously oppose judges like Alito and Roberts is that not all Democrats agree on who is a mainstream conservative and who is outside the mainstream.  But there is no mass movement on the left declaring that it is unacceptable to vote against a judge for reasons of ideology, so who are they arguing with?

    Frankly, it's a little late now for them to bring this point up.  They would have done far better, politically speaking, to make their case against Sotomayor on the grounds that they don't like liberals as opposed to make it all about race.

    Arguing with themselves (none / 0) (#6)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:41:38 PM EST
    Since they were the ones arguing against Dems doing that during the Bush administration.

    So much more convenient to set up a straw man than to admit they were wrong back then.

    Parent

    I guess (none / 0) (#9)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:55:03 PM EST
    but they don't normally need this kind of huffing and puffing in order to flip-flop on other issues.

    Parent
    I think we can expect huffing and puffing (none / 0) (#12)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 01:12:36 PM EST
    when they so much as take a position on coke v pepsi in the next 4 years.

    Parent
    BTD, you missed the fine print (none / 0) (#4)
    by pluege on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:34:23 PM EST
    McConnell's words only apply to judicial nominees of Democratic Presidents. The same old no questions accepted from Democrats for nominees of republican presidents, and Democrats must rubber stamp nominees of republican presidents is still in affect...nothing changed.

    I can hear it now (none / 0) (#7)
    by ruffian on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:46:55 PM EST
    next time a Republican president makes an appointment 'Obama's appointments were so radically ideological we sorrowfully had to drop our deeply felt policy. President Nutjob's appointment on the other hand is in the mainstream and Dems opposing him are clearly partisan ideologues.'

    Ooops, sorry, I was optimistically supposing there would be any Dem opposition.

    Parent

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#8)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:54:01 PM EST
    They absolutely opposed Clinton nominees on ideological grounds.  The difference was that they didn't have to announce that to the world because they just bottled them up in committee.

    Then they pretended that never happened for eight years of George Bush.  Their "up or down" vote rhetoric was always bull.

    Not pretending anymore (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:58:02 PM EST


    Parent
    Hopefully (none / 0) (#13)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    That means the press will stop giving them credit for an ideological consistency they never possessed.  One of the most frustrating things about the "nuclear option" debate was how Orrin Hatch and Trent Lott were allowed to piously talk about up or down votes with nary a mention of all those Clinton nominees that lingered because Hatch wouldn't schedule hearings.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#10)
    by dk on Fri Aug 07, 2009 at 12:55:38 PM EST
    The next step is to pressure senators from all sides not to vote to confirm a nominee until the nominee has declared his or her political/ideological philosophies under oath.

    Advice And Consent: A Final Word | 10 comments (10 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment