Don’t Despair: Strong justices can still be confirmed

[Naturalized-Texan]

Don’t Despair: Strong justices can still be confirmed (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjMzMzRmNzQ1NTUyY2NjNzBjYWE4ZWQ4ODE3YWZkOGU=)

The Democrats’ capture of formal control of the Senate is bad news for President Bush’s judicial nominations — especially to the federal courts of appeals — during his final two years in office. But don’t be fooled by Democrats’ bluffing. There’s still plenty of room to get another excellent Supreme Court justice — or even two or three more — confirmed.

Skeptical? Consider the last Republican appointee to the Court to be confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate — Clarence Thomas in 1991. That Senate had 57 Democrats and only 43 Republicans, and the swirl of allegations gave Democrats plenty of cover to vote against the nomination. Still, 11 Democrats voted for Thomas, and he was confirmed by a 52-48 margin.

A lot has changed since 1991, but the changes cut in both directions. The Democrats have gotten more unified — and nastier — on judicial confirmations since then, but the high-profile politics of a Supreme Court nomination enhances the case for confirmation of a strong pick. Opponents can’t rely on obscure procedures to block the nomination. They need to make their case openly, and in the Internet age, unlike with the 1987 nomination of Judge Bork, their distortions won’t go unanswered.

[MrSanity]

I am still skeptical. While Clinton was able to get Ginsberg on the Supremes without a fight, the Bush administration has had a particularly difficult time getting good judges. Remember Miguel Estrada?

[Lazarus]

I appreciate your positive attitude, Tex, but I dont believe we'll see another Conservative Justice confirmed until the Pubs control both the Whitehouse and the Senate again... The Dems are singing the Bi-Partisan song today but they are far more radical and obstructionist than they were when Thomas was confirmed...

They have openly tossed out Judicial competency as the only standard for confirmation (as it has been throughout this nation's history up until now) and now use strictly the political test for confirmation... In their desperation over being out of power for so long, the Dems have reduced the Supreme Court to just another political extension of party politics...

[The_Elucidator]

I am still skeptical. While Clinton was able to get Ginsberg on the Supremes without a fight, the Bush administration has had a particularly difficult time getting good judges. Remember Miguel Estrada?



The next time there is a SCOTUS vacancy he needs to put up a very conservative judge and say confirm him/her or the spot goes vacant until '08.

[Maggie_T]

The Democrats’ capture of formal control of the Senate is bad news for President Bush’s judicial nominations — especially to the federal courts of appeals — during his final two years in office. But don’t be fooled by Democrats’ bluffing. There’s still plenty of room to get another excellent Supreme Court justice — or even two or three more — confirmed.


Uh-huh. I bet Teddy Kennedy, Dick(head) Durbin, Chucky Shumer, Hillary Clinton, etc., are simply chomping at the bit to confirm conservative judges.

Mr. Whelan had better lay off of the Kool Aid.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I appreciate your positive attitude, Tex
That wasn't my positive attitude, but Mr. Whelan's. I agree with you that no judicial nominee who believes in the Constitution will be confirmed until the Republicans control both the Senate and the White House.

The next time there is a SCOTUS vacancy he needs to put up a very conservative judge and say confirm him/her or the spot goes vacant until '08.
I agree.

[MrSanity]

That wasn't my positive attitude, but Mr. Whelan's. I agree with you that no judicial nominee who believes in the Constitution will be confirmed until the Republicans control both the Senate and the White House.

I agree.We'll be able to fit the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor... I know she leaned left of center, but at least she was half decent. It's not the ideal situation, but for what it's worth. If we're really lucky, we can get a right of center judge.

[Republican_Legion]

Sandra Day Oconnor actually sided with the far left the vast majority of the time. Hardly center left. If its another Oconnor that bush picks I hope the Republicans try a filbuster on him/her and hold it until we take back the senate. Faux News thinks she a centerist, what a bunch of bullcrap coming from a network that has more leftists then conservatives.

If we have to have an nominee I'd prefer harriet miers instead of a O'connor Socialist. The democrats cannot reject her even though they will try because Dingy Harry himself in the past said shes an ok pick. Shes a stealth nominee but a GWB strongly believes she is on our side and I Trust GWBs words on judges after he gave us Roberts/Alito which Reagan or GWHB never gave us two good ones.

[MrSanity]

Faux News thinks she a centerist, what a bunch of bullcrap coming from a network that has more leftists then conservatives.Huh?

If we have to have an nominee I'd prefer harriet miers instead of a O'connor Socialist. The democrats cannot reject her even though they will try because Dingy Harry himself in the past said shes an ok pick. Shes a stealth nominee but a GWB strongly believes she is on our side and I Trust GWBs words on judges after he gave us Roberts/Alito which Reagan or GWHB never gave us two good ones.Yeah, we may have to go with a Miers-brand judge. But Miers, herself? I don't think Bush wants another backlash from his conservative base. If she had judicial experience, then she would have credibility.

As far as GHWB/Reagan judges, at least we got Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. They gave us some left-leaning judges too, I agree. Republicans actually appointed many judges that have ruled in favor of Roe v Wade.