Promises to Keep --- UPDATED
By AndrewHyman Posted in Analysis and Predictions — Comments (5) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I pretty much agree with Carol Platt Liebau's view regarding the silliness of Senator Specter's plan to investigate whether Supreme Court justices have been keeping their "promises" to the Judiciary Committee. A significant aspect of this question is whether it's even legal for nominees to make promises. Is it consistent with the judicial oath of office for nominees to commit to positions in order to get confirmed? Most people don't realize that there are actually two separate oaths that a federal judge must take. The first oath is spelled out by 28 USC 453, which says:
I, XXX XXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as XXX under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.
There's nothing here about performing duties under the promises made to the Judiciary Committee. On the contrary, if such promises conflict with an impartial interpretation of the Constitution and laws, then keeping such promises is illegal. The second oath that federal judges must take is spelled out in 5 USC 3331:
I, AB, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
This second oath does not allow judges to reserve the right to instead bear true faith and allegiance to promises made to the Judiciary Committee. Therefore, even if Senator Specter does detect that promises to his Committee have been broken (which I very much doubt he will find), it may well be illegal to keep such promises anyway.
UPDATE: Senator Specter has clarified: "I went the extra mile to get Roberts and Alito confirmed, and I stand by that....I did not mean to imply that either Roberts or Alito were disingenuous when they appeared before the committee....the real criticism was Breyer’s, not mine.” More here from the Wall Street Journal.
jtp7
by BoBo
It might just be a clerical or technological error, but it would be nice to know if Bush is holding up her commission until the Dems move faster on some other nominees. He might have decided to hold up the commission to make sure that Neff has less seniority as a judge than Jonker and Mahoney.
Playing both sides of the fence
by BoBo
Oh my goodness, Specter is equivocating again? I don't think is qualification is much better than his original statement. Is he saying now that it was Breyer's suggestion that Specter investigate Roberts and Alito? If that is the case, then Specter actually needs to start investigating Breyer for trying to sow seeds of discord on the court. When has it ever been appropriate for a sitting justice to critique some of his peers with senators? Also, it makes Specter look like a naive tool of the Dems, easily manipulated into making statements damaging not only to nominees whose confirmations he approved but also to his party in general. See what happens, Arlen, when you try to have your cake and eat it too?
How not to influence people
by Mose
It's hard to know what to make of all this. Could Breyer really have blundered so badly? I realize that Roberts and Alito are not really "in play", but it seems far too soon for the libs to give up all hope of gaining their vote on the odd case. An accusation that you lied in your confirmation hearings must be right up there with the most offensive things one justice could say about another. Talk about burning bridges. Perhaps we could get Breyer to say something mean about Kennedy's mom while he's at it.
as I said in the previous thread
by Dienekes
I'm much more appalled at what the politico story implies Breyer said than Specter's quixotic quest, to the extent The Good Guys are even its complete or major aim, which I am not entirely certain of.
I noticed that she still has not received her commission yet. http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/Judges!OpenFrameSet
The other two MI judges have as have OGrady from VA who was confirmed on the same day. Here is Jonker's official bio for an example: http://www.fjc.gov/history/home.nsf/Judges!OpenFrameSet
Is this just an oversite or is something bigger going on here?