Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Elphaba
Adam, I found your thesis very well written and I applaud your work. My knowledge of the constitution doesn't rise to your level of scholarship, so I can't offer the critique you have requested.
Would you be willing to give me two concrete examples in the nominations of Roberts and Miers and how they apply to your argument?
|
Thank you for the compliment, Elphaba. Perhaps it will offset the less enthusiastic review I expect from my Con Law prof next week!
In the way of examples, I can only point you towards the testimony of Senators on either side of the issue, so here we go!
My former employer, Senator Susan Collins said the following:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Susan Collins
“I have great confidence in Judge Robert’s legal scholarship, his integrity, and his commitment to the rule of law. His decisions will be guided not by his own personal view of what the law should be, but rather by a disciplined review and analysis of what the law is. The overwhelming bipartisan support that Judge Roberts received today speaks volumes about his qualifications. He is the right person for the job,” Senator Collins said.
|
Link to Collins' Press Office
This is precisely the correct attitude to have when it comes to the nominations process. Senator Collins looked at Roberts' qualifications and his "commitment to the rule of law", which is another way of saying his faithfulness to the Constitution. Now, the Senator is very strongly pro-choice: she was one of a handfull of Republicans to vote against the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, as an example. Even so, she voted to confirm John Roberts, a man who could very concievably vote to overturn
Roe v. Wade. If only all Senators understood that the
President is the one who decides the ideology of Federal Judges and the Senate simply makes sure he doesn't appoint Mier-, uh, cronies or otherwise unqualified people.
Dianne Feinstein, the sole woman on the Judiciary Committee, saw things differently:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dianne Feinstein
I basically believe that once someone has earned a right they should not lose that right and the rights coming before the court in this upcoming session and in future sessions are really critical rights.
I am the only woman on this committee. And when I started, I said that was going to be my bar. He didn’t cross my bar.
|
Link to Senator Feinstein's Press Office
The very, very obvious translation of this statement is, "I don't think Roberts will uphold a woman's right to an abortion, so he doesn't 'cross my bar'." This is the danger I highlight in my thesis above: Senator Feinstein is saying that SCOTUS nominees must agree with her on the issue of abortion or she will vote against them. If enough Senators adopted this position, then the Court would no longer operate as a check on the legislative... I'll let you fill in the rest of the argument, but you see where this is going.
I hope that is a satisfactory set of examples. If you were looking for something else, by all means, tell me and I'll try to provide it.