Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Advise. Don’t Consent.
Justice John Marshall by Henry Inman.
If he’s right, that would give the GOP leverage in the confirmation process. But the Senate GOP needs to take its role seriously. Too many Republicans say things like, “The President should get the justices he wants, as long as the nominees are qualified.” Lindsay Graham has put that saying into practice.
What does “qualified” mean? The word “qualified” has been misused and shouldn’t be applied to any judge or justice that fails to uphold the Constitution.
Originalism and textualism are not ideological concepts. They are the job description for anyone who sits on the bench and shouldn’t be considered optional. If original intent doesn’t matter, why did the Constitution’s authors write it down? And how do you ascertain that original intent? By reading the words that were written in the document. That’s what words are for. That’s why the Constitution is made of them.
It’s true the framers didn’t want the constitution to be frozen in time. That’s why they added the amendment process. Some people want the Constitution to change, to their liking, without amendments. “Living Constitution,” anyone? Just as no law that hasn’t gone through the process of becoming a law should be enacted, no change to the Constitution that hasn’t gone through the amendment process should be compelled by a judge.
A judicial nominee that doesn’t understand the above is — or will be — violating the Oath of Office and shouldn’t be considered “qualified” by the Senate.
Just say no, GOP.
Published in General
There will be Republican Senators who vote for Biden’s nominee. Guaranteed.
Best to keep our powder dry.
Huh. I had never heard this argument before. Interesting. From Tribe’s Boston Globe op-Ed…
I think the argument makes sense for Executive branch appointments.
I haven’t heard anyone express that argument for Judicial Branch appointments in many years.
I heard that the Judiciary committee is split evenly. Without a majority of that committee, there is no nominee. Lindsey Graham will bend over for the Dems.
That’s the justification Lindsey Graham uses as he rubber-stamps all of Biden’s judicial nominees.
The problem with this argument, though, is that Article I simply says that the VP has no vote unless the Senate is tied. It does not limit the context in which the tie-breaking vote may be cast. It’s an interesting argument, but I don’t know how it squares with the text. Also, if I recall correctly, didn’t Pence break a tie on a lower court nominee?
I couldn’t help thinking that when Justice Breyer said the US was an “experiment,” he also meant the Constitution was, too. Just another excuse for playing around with the basics of our nation.
No it’s not.
Can’t say whether Mr. Tribe was right or not. (He is a liberal lawyer, after all.) Regardless, Republicans need to narrow down the definition of “qualified” to only those who will uphold the Constitution based on its words.
Tribe’s argument continues:
As a structural matter, the provision granting the vice president the power to break ties in the Senate is located in Article I, which addresses Legislative Power. By contrast, the Senate’s “Advice and Consent” power over judicial appointments appears in Article II, making it a form of power wielded by the Senate that is executive, not legislative, in nature. The vice president has some power to influence legislation, by casting a tiebreaking vote in the Senate, while the Senate has some power to influence executive appointments, by granting or withholding consent. Structurally, the vice president cannot smuggle his Article I legislative tiebreaking power into Article II to undermine the Senate’s unique Article II executive power of advice and consent
There us more at…
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/09/23/opinion/no-hiding-behind-pences-skirt-supreme-court-nomination/
I tire of hearing how a nominee from this or that demographic or ethnicity can or cannot “represent” that demographic or ethnicity on the Supreme Court. With lifetime appointments, it is the single least representative of the three branches of government, intentionally. The members of the Court are not there to “represent” anyone, but rather to interpret the Constitution in a principled way, and to apply its provisions to the cases that come before it.
In an aside, I personally think this appointment should go to the worst possible, woke liberal, non-brain-functioning, self-declared most oppressed, non-serious candidate. Kamala is an ideal fit for this slot.
My rational is simple. Even the squishes on the court (I’m looking at you Roberts) would be embarrassed to side with heels-up giggle girl, just to be seen as “fair”.
We will get get a whack job lefty nominated and approved. Let’s hope it is the worst possible selection imaginable.
The rest of the court will gel into an originalist, constitutional intent juggernaut.
HAHAHAHAHA
Oh, Yer serious.
That’s pretty tough to do when words and contracts are living and breathing; especially in the penumbras.
I would like them to nominate the best possible lefty. Then we can point out that this pathetic candidate is unfortunately the best the Democrats can do.