ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

President Bush reiterated Tuesday night that he'll "continue to urge the Senate to fulfill its constitutional responsibility by giving every judicial nominee an up or down vote on the Senate floor."

Meanwhile, Matt Chancey of Harrisonburg, Virginia has this and more to say in The Augusta Free Press:

Judges never were intended by our Founding Fathers to be the High Priests of our Republic. Judges have exerted far more power than the Constitution lawfully gives them. Many have become virtual dictators. But the Republican response has too often been "let's get our own judges into office, and then we'll have conservative dictators." I don't know about you, but I don't want Democrat or Republican dictators. No federal judge - I repeat, NO FEDERAL JUDGE - of any political persuasion should have the unlimited power possessed by the black-robed priests in our judiciary today.

And, Bruce Hausknecht has an article today titled "Who are the Extremists?" in Family News in Focus. Here's part of it:

What is an "extremist" judge? Well, what if you were an applicant for a federal court judgeship and your resume included seven years as the general counsel and six years as a board member of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)? (Who among us seriously believes that the ACLU could even locate the American "mainstream" without the use of star charts?)

What if your published views on the legal status of women under federal law included the following tidbits?

"Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions."

"Sex-segregated adult or juvenile institutions are obviously separate and in a variety of ways, unequal.

"If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected."

"[T]he provision (prohibiting bigamists from voting or holding office) is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships."

"The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing 'separate but equal' benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally-mandated purposes."

And last, but not least:

"Replacing 'Mother's Day' and 'Father's Day' with a 'Parents' Day' should be considered, as an observance more consistent with a policy of minimizing traditional sex-based differences in parental roles."

I may not have a complete grip on where the American "mainstream" is, but I'm pretty sure that advocating constitutional protection for prostitution and bigamy, coed prisons, abolishing the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and getting rid of Mother's Day and Father's Day because they are too sexist isn't even close.

But what about a judge with such a resume? Who could possibly fit this description and still be appointed as a federal judge in this day and age of filibusters and obstructionism? Why, none other than the Hon. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, of course.

Ginsburg was nominated by President Clinton to the Supreme Court in 1993. It took just six weeks for the Senate to confirm her by an overwhelming 96-3 vote. No Republican filibuster; no rallies on the Senate steps decrying the nomination; no multi-million dollar public relations campaign to prevent her confirmation, a la Robert Bork.

Was it because Ginsburg was so "mainstream"? Hardly. Was it because she replaced another liberal, and so maintained that precious "balance" on the court (read: liberals win) that is trumpeted all the time in the media? Nope – she replaced Byron White, a solid conservative. The answer is pretty simple, really. Republicans joined Democrats to confirm Ginsburg because Republicans understood that elections mean something, and that a president's prerogative of choosing judicial nominees should be given great deference.

Bush, Chancey, and Hausknecht have the right idea. IMHO.

Also of interest is this essay by "The Fox" explaining why inter-branch collaboration in the nomination process may not be such a good idea.