-
Biden’s Blind Spot
October 12, 2012 | 0 comments
-
Dishonest Unemployment Numbers
October 5, 2012 | 6 comments
-
Indefatigable, Indeed
October 3, 2012 | 2 comments
-
Fortunately, Congressman Weiner’s Office Could Not Be Reached for Comment
March 1, 2012 | 4 comments
-
Applause Tracks for Newt?
January 24, 2012 | 9 comments
The Spectacle Blog
From the Corner at National Review:
Make the case against liberal jurisprudence and vote against Kagan while knowing it won’t stop her confirmation. In my view, that’s what Republicans should do.
Ramesh Ponnuru has the right approach, generally, with one caveat — it might actually stop her confirmation.
We can’t give in and say that Kagan is a fait accompli or that Obama’s a liberal, he’ll appoint a liberal justice, we can’t stop it…
We should ask whether they’re suited for the court and whether they’re suited for the process.
Harriet Miers, who, in my opinion, was not suited for the Court or the process, could have been confirmed. She wasn’t. Her nomination imploded from the inside out. I’m glad for that. She’s probably a decent person and a bright legal mind. But for the SCOTUS it takes more than that. Besides, we got Samuel Alito as a result of her withdrawal. Not a bad consolation by any measure.
The Miers scenario illustrates exactly what can happen to subpar nominees. They’re not inanimate objects. While it might be difficult to objectively prove them unequal to the task, we might find that they realize the same themselves — and withdraw.
“Advise and consent” could just as easily have been “an up or down vote by the Senate” but it’s not; it’s advise and consent. And the role of Justices, especially as viewed by the left, is far too significant in 2010 to be anything resembling an automatic bid.
Moreover, liberal pundits and politicians alike think the Supreme Court is already too conservative. They think they’re owed one more flip just to balance the court. They won’t be willing to treat a Kennedy, Scalia, or a Thomas resignation, for instance, as an automatic bid for another moderate to Conservative nomination. So, it’s way too important not to throw everything legal and decent at these nominees. If they can’t take the process, they don’t belong.
And no, I’m not talking about the impertinence of questions like “are you a racist?” as was asked of Alito, because we’re not donkeys. We’ll leave that to the Democrats. But we should make them have to defend their existence on the Bench.
And in the process, we just never know what might happen.
View all comments (8) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Robert P. Kirchhoefer
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/18/the-scotus-nomination-standard
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Oldefarte| 5.18.10 @ 1:07PM
This creeping liberalism must stop somewhere and it could/should begin with her nomination. No doubt she has an able legal mind, but her philosophy is just too extremely liberal. She's being nominated for one purpose only-----as a [closeted] homosexual, she'll be a political bone to that community; and her future decisions on sexual orientation matters coming before the SCOTUS will advance their immoral march!!!!!
Ron Harris| 5.18.10 @ 2:07PM
Be careful what you wish for. Kagan is most likely much better than the next nominee Obama serves up. I'm hoping she gets confirmed. At least there's a chance she'll be moderate.
Oldefarte| 5.18.10 @ 3:53PM
Then you must also be hoping for her futuristic HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA as a SC jurist, right??
Jim Hlavac | 5.18.10 @ 6:02PM
And just what is a "futuristic HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA"? First time I ever saw that formulation! Wow.
Now, Kagan, she's come out repeatedly against gay marriage, as has Obama, Biden, H. Clinton, etc. Rather clearly, too. Democrats all. DOMA is still the law of the land. Few cases of gay rights come to the Supreme Court -- counted on fingers in the past 20-30 years. And do you (perhaps) think there is some plot (futuristic?) to turn the nation gay? (And at least gays aren't involved in the abortion debate; no babies you know, one of the chief complaints against gays, mind you.) Because, um, what? It's not "natural" or something -- not that anyone has looked at that either, but relied on the Bible, which condemns shrimp, pork and cotton-wool blends equally, though those parts are conveniently said to be outdated or something, as is the prohibition to adultery and divorce (talk about your futuristic heterosexual agenda!) -- So what? Gays are from outer space (where else could they come from, then)?
Or is it just that some unknown percentage (no one really knows, or counted) of gay Americans might enjoy Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness which the Creator obviously created -- and which might be reflected in law -- which should, per the Constitution, apply to all equally? Or are gays outside the legal system? Never to be mentioned, accorded a thought or given the time of day, though they be tax payers and citizens?
Which cases of gay rights has she ever been involved in? None. Not as a lawyer or as anything that I've seen published to date -- except statements Against gay marriage in her prior hearings, which she clarified to make stronger. Though I have not studied her slim record, it's her police state mentality, so similar to yours, that bugs me.
Still, too, perhaps the few gay cases that went for gays (most were lost) -- most notably Lawrence v. Texas which overturned Bowers on Privacy grounds -- should be rescinded or repealed yet again, so that in police state fashion gays might be rounded up, fired, thrown out of their houses, denied benefits, contracts, etc, and maybe just all arrested and thrown in jail? What would you do with gays? Start the bar raids again? Don't we have enough business closures now?
It's a strange brand of dislike (I don't say hate, I don't know you, sir) you have for people whom you doubtless already avoid.
Still, if being single was the criteria for being assumed gay then I would think that forced marriages by, oh, 25 years of age or so, would be what you should be pushing for - and procreate -- or else!
But until you call for outlawing Divorce and Adultery, lay off the slim portion of the population who are gay who just want the Right To Be Left Alone.
Should you be invited to a gay wedding or something, just don't go, OK? It would be best for all the guests.
mysterian1729| 5.18.10 @ 3:01PM
> Besides, we got Samuel Alito as a result of her
withdrawal.
As well as destroying the credibility of all opposed to the Democrats stalling on nominees.
> Not a bad consolation by any measure.
If you like the current administration.
N. Walsh| 5.18.10 @ 3:14PM
No doubt Alito worked for me, but don't you think liberals would have been better off with Harriet Miers? That would be my fear here. Kagan gets bounced for a much more formidable, and liberal jurist.