ConfirmThem

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

With a little help from How Appealing, I've found a few items of interest....

There's a good profile of Judge Luttig by Tony Mauro of Legal Times here. Evidently, his present and former clerks are known as "Luttigators."

Meanwhile, Senator Specter is "Speculating" that Chief Justice Rehnquist is not going to retire. Specter and Rehnquist are both cancer-fighters, and Specter points out that having an important job is therapeutic. More of the recent retirement rumors can be found here and here. Whether he chooses to retire or not, confirmthem sends best wishes to the Chief Justice for good health.

Senator Graham recently did an interview, touching upon filibusters:

Filibustering somebody because they're ideologically conservative is no longer an acceptable objection. Ideological filibusters in the future, I think, should be rejected….The real loser in a filibuster that is never-ending by both parties is the quality of judges. Good men and women will not come forward if they're going to have their brains beat out….Either one [Scalia or Thomas] would be excellent. They're solid conservatives. Scalia's my personal favorite, but that would be up to the president. To expect George Bush to (nominate) anybody but a conservative is unrealistic. But if we collaborate, if he will talk with the Senate, if we sit down and talk with each other, we can find a conservative to sit on the Supreme Court without blowing up the Senate.

On June 14, Senator Warner wrote an interesting letter to a constituent regarding this same issue, and the letter is available at redstate.org. Warner's letter seemed to suggest that the so-called nuclear option would not have made any difference, because there are other ways to stop nominations besides filibusters. One of the commenters at redstate took Warner to task on this point.

And finally, for now, Senator Cornyn has an excellent letter in the Sunday New York Times criticizing the Times for calling him a "rubberstamp." The full letter is rubberstamped below the fold.

To the Editor:

"The Center Can Hold" (editorial, June 12) disparages Republican senators for rubber-stamping President Bush's judicial nominees. But the constitutional role of the Senate is simply to provide advice and consent on nominees without regard to any particular numerical outcome.

Moreover, no one should be surprised if senators tend to agree with a president of the same party.

Has The Times held up to ridicule Senator Charles E. Schumer, who has yet to vote against a single Democratic president's judicial nominee; or Senators Patty Murray, Dick Durbin, Byron L. Dorgan or Christopher J. Dodd? All served during the Clinton administration yet failed to vote against a single Clinton judicial nominee.

What about Senators Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Patrick J. Leahy? They served under Presidents Carter and Clinton yet failed to vote against a Carter or Clinton judicial nominee.

Have you accused Senator Ted Kennedy of rubber-stamping nominees? He served under Presidents John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton and never voted against any of their judicial nominees.

Senate practice and even the Constitution contemplate deference to the president and a presumption in favor of confirmation. Further, a number of Republican senators, including me, opposed President Bush's nomination of Dora Irizarry of New York to serve on the federal bench.

John Cornyn
U.S. Senator from Texas
Washington, June 14, 2005