ConfirmThem

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

Here's an interesting article from earlier today about Karen Williams, and I've also linked to it at the right side of our page. If you've got time left over, don't miss Paul Weyrich's latest column about the upcoming SCOTUS nomination.

I heard somewhere that Justice O'Connor is recommending against nominating a state court judge, because of her own difficulty getting up to speed when she was appointed to the Supreme Court. But a bias against state court judges would not be a good idea, especially state supreme court judges (O'Connor herself never made it to the Arizona Supreme Court and instead was plucked from the Arizona State Court of Appeals). Among other things, such a bias would turn the US Senate into a bottleneck through which every prospective nominee must have passed, and it seems to me the Senate is powerful enough already. Of course, that doesn't mean there aren't some outstanding federal court judges who would make great SCOTUS nominees.

I'd also like to point out that a nominee who speaks in platitudes is well and good, but there ought to be much more to a nominee than professions of restraint and modesty and humility, all of which would make Uriah Heep proud. IMHO, the President ought to ask potential nominees whether they believe the doctrine of substantive due process is legitimate. He also ought to ask whether the doctrine of stare decisis can compel SCOTUS to not overturn a demonstrably erroneous decision of constitutional law. These questions were asked and answered during the Roberts hearings, so why not during the vetting process too? A potential nominee who answers "yes" to either question is probably not going to be in the tradition of justices Scalia or Thomas.

It would really be great if we could get a nominee who will STOP turning the clock back to the days when there was no rule of law. While we may agree or disagree about the outcome of cases like Lawrence v. Texas, only a fool would contend that the outcome of that case was dictated or implied by the text of the U.S. Constitution. The framers of the Constitution were not so foolish as to give federal judges carte blanche power to create and alter a common law that trumps the laws enacted by our representatives.

George Washington said it better than me or anyone else, in his farewell address:

“If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit which the use can at any time yield.�

UPDATE: Here's an interesting article by Trevor Morrison: "Must U.S. Supreme Court Nominees First Serve on Federal Courts of Appeals?"