ConfirmThem

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

Prof. Ronald Cass, who is also the new co-chairman of the Committee for Justice, has an op/ed in this morning's Los Angeles Times that makes a critical point about the Left's bogus balance argument.

Cass points out that Justice Byron White was one of only two votes against the original Roe v. Wade decision and a dissenter in the Casey case. When given the opportunity to replace Justice White, however, President Clinton selected Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former General Counsel for the ACLU. Where was the consideration of balance? Of course, there was none.

With the court so closely divided, what did Clinton do to preserve the balance? Did he replace White with another conservative, someone equally clear that there is no constitutional protection for abortion? He chose the former general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, a leading liberal law scholar whose special interest was women's rights: Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Any question how close she was going to be to White?

The president did what presidents always do. He picked someone he thought would be a good justice according to his own views. He didn't worry about preserving the balance on the court, and he certainly didn't worry about maintaining the court's division over abortion.

With a 56-44 Democratic majority in the Senate, Clinton didn't worry about much other than replacing White with someone his party approved of and the GOP would credit as sufficiently accomplished to do the job. Ginsburg, the strongly pro-choice liberal judge and former law professor, fit that bill. Whether or not you like her positions on legal issues, Ginsburg is a smart, skillful lawyer and judge. And she garnered 96 of 99 votes cast on her confirmation — including the overwhelming majority of pro-life Republicans.

[snip]

It's time to return to the understanding that presidents get to pick the judges they want, as long as they're qualified for the job, and that senators are voting not on whether a nominee conforms to their preferences but on whether he or she shows the competence and temperament necessary to the judicial role. It's time to recognize the Clinton Precedent as the benchmark for what presidents do.

So as you hear the Left arguing for balance on the court, Cass has provided just one more illustration of just how empty the balance argument really is.