10-06-2005, 06:27 PM
|
#3 (permalink)
|
|
Addict
|
Quote:
“Almost everyone would agree that the President should not nominate, and the Senate should not confirm, someone who thinks that the Constitution does not protect private property, or permits schools to be segregated on the basis of race, or allows government to suppress political dissent.”
Supporters of ideological investigation of judicial nominees cite examples of extreme ideologies in order to prove that nominees who hold certain beliefs should be voted down in the Senate. However, the three examples listed above would all be grounds for rejecting a nominee without having to consider ideology. To begin, anyone who thinks that the Constitution does not protect private property is being blatantly unfaithful to the plain text of the Constitution, which says, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated… but upon probable cause.” There is no question that private property is protected under the Constitution. Secondly, anyone familiar with Court precedent would understand that the unconstitutionality of school segregation was definitively established in the landmark case Brown v. Board of Education. It would be highly irregular to overturn an established precedent that was itself an overturning of a much earlier precedent. Thus, a nominee’s opposition to Brown would indicate a lack of deference to established precedent. Finally, the first amendment is nearly universally understood to protect political dissent under “the freedom of speech, or of the press.”
It is thus maintained that, in the context of judicial nominations, ideology should not be used to determine the suitability of a candidate. The Constitution is a well-engineered document that does not lend itself to ridiculous interpretations. As a result, extremely disagreeable ideologies are definitionally divorced from the original text, and nominees holding these views can be rejected. Alternatively, any ideological stance that can be justified by an appeal to the letter of the Constitution should not be used by a Senator as an excuse for opposing the appointment of a nominee.
The other major power that Congress has over the judiciary is the ability to impeach Supreme Court Justices and remoce them from office. This safeguard against judicial excess could be misused by Congress to eliminate Justices who disagreed with the ideology of the majority party, as will be discussed.
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
More specifically, the House of Representatives is given the power of impeachments. “The House of Representatives shall… have the sole Power of Impeachment.” In the event of an impeachment, the Senate would then act as a jury for the case. “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments.” The Senators vote on articles of impeachment and, should any article receive supermajority support, the officer in question would be removed.
Questions surrounding the appropriate grounds for impeachment have centered on the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors”. The Framers specified that treason and bribery were included in this category, but they did not give any other examples. This has led to some significant disagreements over which offenses are severe enough to merit impeachment.
|
Last edited by politicophile; 10-06-2005 at 09:10 PM..
|
|
|