ConfirmThem

By AndrewHyman Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments () / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

The framers of the Constitution thought not. Here's what Alexander Hamilton said:

[I]t will readily be conceived from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind, that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk, and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge. These considerations apprise us, that ... a temporary duration in office, which would naturally discourage such characters from quitting a lucrative line of practice to accept a seat on the bench, would have a tendency to throw the administration of justice into hands less able, and less well qualified, to conduct it with utility and dignity.

Just something to mull over (in view of the previous post about John Hinderaker). And maybe Senator McCain is setting the bar a bit too low:

If it turns out she’s a communist I would consider a no vote. Or, perhaps an arsonist, or an axe-murderer, but we have to review it. I am favorably disposed towards her and want to see the hearings. That’s why we have the hearings.

UPDATE [10/9/05]: It occurs to me that Senator McCain's humorous remark unintentionally raises an interesting point. No one would say that an axe-murderer has the requisite integrity to serve on the Supreme Court. And no one would say that someone who favors the legality of axe murders has enough integrity to serve on the Court either. So consider this statement by the Supreme Court of California:

"The third party killing of a fetus with malice aforethought is murder . . . as long as the state can show that the fetus has progressed beyond the embryonic stage of seven to eight weeks." People v. Davis, 7 Cal. 4th 797, 814, 30 Cal. Rptr. 2d 50, 61, 872 P.2d 591, 602 (1994).

Of course, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Constitution as guaranteeing a right to abort many months after the embryonic stage. At what point does a misinterpretation of the Constitution sink to the point of demonstrating lack of integrity? And should it be okay to question a nominee in order to screen out nominees who lack that integrity? Tough questions.