A Really Dumb Plan
By Carol Platt Liebau Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments (12) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
According to the Politico, Arlen Specter intends to examine the statements of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito to see if they were somehow misleading or inconsistent with the votes the justices have made since ascending to the Supreme Court. Yes, that would be Arlen Spector (R-often in name only, PA).
The idea is so foolish that it's almost tedious to discuss it. The Court is a co-equal branch of government with the Congress. The Constitution offers one remedy for misbehavior on the part of judges: Impeachment. A judge voting his conscience in a case that comes before him -- when that's what he's been sworn to do -- can't be construed as an impeachable offense anywhere outside an insane asylum, whether Arlen Specter likes the outcome or not. And that's really the end of the story. After all, this is hardly the first time that senators have voted for a justice hoping they're getting one thing and then winding up with another. Exhibit A: David Souter.
It's remarkable that Specter would choose this time and these justices to initiate such an undertaking. No doubt we'll see Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sandra Day O'Connor and other prominent jurists emerge to inveigh against the threat to judicial independence -- as they did when judges and justices were being criticized from the right. Or not.
what a brilliant idea
by LMK
What a brilliant idea, Arlen, persuade Democrats never to confirm any Republican Supreme Court nominees.
It's possible that Spector sees this hearing as a bargaining chip with the democrats on the judiciary committee. The hearing gives the democrats a chance to kvetch about Roberts and Alito: "Not modest!"; "No respect for stare decicis, which is the most important doctrine ever!" "This umpire moves the gosh darn strike zone!"; etc. In return, Spector will try to extract some movement on one or more of the stalled nominees. If Spector was really crafty (under this theory) he would have already extracted a concession of some sort before calling for the hearing. I don't think that this strategy would get the democrats to concede anything they weren't already prepared to concede (such as confirming district court nominees), but at any rate it's a theory.
Of course, it's much more likely that this is just a RINO being a RINO, but hope springs eternal.
Arlen Spector's ID on FoxNews Yesterday
by BananaRepublican
On Special Report yesterday, Arlen Specter was identified as such - "ARLEN SPECTER (D-PA)"
I thought, "well, that's about right."
Can Specter be trusted?
by BoBo
I am sick and tired of Specter playing both sides of the fence. He makes a big to-do over Southwick and then says he going to investigate Roberts and Alito? This is sickening. How can we trust him to get even relatively minor nominees like Elrod, Tinder and Haynes confirmed?
If this is indeed tit for tat
by zendari
I'll take it. Toss Gonzalez under a bus for another nominee as well, please.
its also possible
by Dienekes
that Specter plans this more (or as much) as a slap at the Democrats than Roberts/Alito. a chance to tell the whinging Dems, in effect, "case dismissed!"
I certainly wouldn't bet on it, but as annoyed as the Dems have made him, I wouldn't be surprised if he wanted to stick it to them as at least a secondary motive, either.
and I'm more appalled at the implied words of Justice Breyer than I am about Sen. Specter going off to tilt at windmills in any case.
Breyer's comments aren't that bad
by zendari
As it appears at the moment, he didn't intend for some of them to be public.
zendari
by BoBo
I disagree. Whether Breyer thought his comments would be public or not, I think it is just plain bad form for any justice to imply that two of his peers are liars and need to be investigated by the Senate.
bobo
by zendari
I didn't get that from the article.
"Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed.
"It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities. "
I'd have to hear exactly what Breyer said, but it seems the investigation idea came from Specter.
bobo
by zendari
I didn't get that from the article.
"Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed.
"It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," Breyer said, reading his dissent from the bench to a 5-4 ruling that overturned school desegregation policies in two cities. "
I'd have to hear exactly what Breyer said, but it seems the investigation idea came from Specter.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MGRkZTc5ZWY1NmM4YTg1ZGVjMzY5Yjdj...
Specter is quoted as saying, “the real criticism was Breyer’s, not mine.”
That sort of thing is about all the Senate has accomplished in six months.
Like you said, pursue impeachment or shut the heck up.