ConfirmThem

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

If there is a vacancy for the Supreme Court soon, Senator Specter promises a long, drawn-out affair:

Specter said that any future judicial nominee would be subject to "a very, very thorough hearing."

Personally, I think it's ridiculous for nominees to have to show up at these televised inquisitions. They can answer all questions in writing. Nominees didn't start appearing for hearings until 1925, and I can't think of any useful purpose that's served, other than giving Senators an opportuinity to pontificate, and politicize the judiciary. Harlan Fiske Stone was the first judicial nominee to appear before a committee:

On January 24, 1925, five days after the Senate Judiciary Committee had recommended Stone's confirmation, Senator Thomas Walsh…convinced the Senate to return the nomination to committee for further review. Although President Coolidge refused to withdraw the nomination, he agreed to an unprecedented compromise. He would allow Stone to become the first Supreme Court nominee in history to appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee. On January 28, 1925, Stone's masterful performance during five hours of public session testimony cleared the way for his quick confirmation.

Returning to the pre-1925 practices seems to be what the "Gang of 14" called for in their recent deal:

[A] return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

What could do more to reduce rancor, and reverse the politicization of the judiciary, than returning to the pre-1925 tradition?