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.
Senate Confirmation Hearings: Let’s Get Rid Of ‘Em
Problem: judicial confirmation hearings have turned into a circus, especially when it’s a Republican president making the nomination.
Solution: let’s ditch the public hearing.
There’s no Constitutional requirement that the Senate hold a public hearing so that committee members can make nice clips for media consumption. The only reason why we have them is because Brandeis, who was Jewish, was nominated and it caused an outcry so he went to the hearing to reassure everyone he wasn’t that radical.
The nominee can still go to Capitol Hill to make the rounds and visit with Senators and answer their questions. Senators can still issue their template press releases stating their opposition. The media-savvy ones can even come up with entertaining ways of making their opposition known. But the main thing is you get rid of the show that the hearings have become and that should benefit the republic.
Published in Law
—
Expound please.
That was the mistake the founders made. They didn’t foresee a time when all three branches were working for the government, not the governed.
A president who refuses a court order should be impeached, but a judge who refuses an order by a president to rule a certain way on a case shouldn’t be impeached? Of course the judge shouldn’t be impeached, and either should such a president, and for the same reason. One branch of govt can’t order another to do something.
The mistake you’re making is to think that “rule of law” means “rule of courts”.
That seems to be what Hamilton had in mind in Federalist 78:
OK, Look, if Congress and the President agree the Court is wrong, the President then can ignore the Court and won’t get impeached. It is not anarchy, it is the other two branches disagreeing. In fact, what ought to happen is Congress Impeaches the Judges. That is what is intended.
I have no idea what you are talking about, a judge who refuses an order to rule a certain way. An example please.
If it is a ruling by a trial court, appeal.
If there is a ruling by the Supreme Court, and Congress and the President agree that the Court is wrong, pass a new law.
If the law is unconstitutional, pass a constitutional amendment.
But a President cannot and must not blow off the Court’s ruling. If a President does, then the House should impeach and the Senate should convict and remove.
That’s the whole, point, there is no example! Because no president has ever been so presumptuous as to make such an improper order. And it’s just as improper the other way around, when courts issue such orders. Yet that happens regularly, because people think the rule of law means the rule of courts, and they don’t want to be seen as enemies of the rule of law.
Again, I’m not talking about a court refusing to convict a defendant under a law it rules unconstitutional. If the executive defied that and went ahead and incarcerated the defendant anyway, then there really would be a constitutional crisis. In that case the court was acting entirely within its proper sphere, it wasn’t ordering another branch to do anything, and it would violate the defendant’s rights to be sent to jail in spite of the courts acquittal. But when courts order presidents to do this or not do that (e.g. don’t enforce the travel ban) that’s an entirely different matter.
If the court improperly applies the law, the losing party, such as the President can appeal, and if it is an error, have it corrected on appeal. However, the President cannot and must not blow off the Court.
You are wrong. “Should” does not enter into it. If Congress and the President agree then the President can blow off any ruling he wants.
The Court is not the final arbiter. The People are. The important things must be decided politically. That is what the Founders intended.
You are inviting anarchy. If the President and Congress disagree with a judicial interpretation of the law, enact a new law. Happens all the time. Congress or the Legislature feel that a Court has erred. Simple. Pass a new law.
So, are you saying that all Congress and the President have to do to reverse Roe v. Wade is pass a new law?
Regrettably, the Supreme Court found a Constitutional Right to privacy in Roe. I hope that Roe is reversed ASAP.
A federal law was passed outlawing partial birth abortion which was found to be constitutional. States are falling over each other to prohibit abortions after 20-24 weeks, which will allow for further Court tests.
No Sir, if the People are behind Congress and the President and the Court is on its own, that is not Anarchy.
The rules are clear: Congress can remove Justices if they have the will. They just never have, If they did, you can bet the vast majority of Americans would be behind them.
Simple.
This suggestion is many things, but simple it is not.
So how would you keep track of the laws under this new system. Right now, anyone can look up a law or judicial precedent. Should there be an asterisk next to laws, current disapproved of by Pesident X, and the 115th Congress. The 116th Congress will be elected in three weeks. Do all of the laws automatically change or have to be reaffirmed? What if the Senate is controlled by one party, and the House is controlled by the other party. A new President may be elected in 2020. What happens when President Y is elected? Assuming that Trump cannot ignore the 22nd Amendment, there will be a new President no later than Noon on January 20, 2025.
The Cherokee got moved. The nation did not fall into Chaos
How is this about Trump all of a sudden? Geez Gary.
The answer is easy. The law stands on the books becasuse Congres and the President says it does. This is not hard man.
The Cherokee might dispute that they did not fall into chaos.
With all due respect, this is nuts.
It is not nuts, it is how things would happen, if the people were that united against the ruling of the Supreme Court.
My hypothetical assumes the political will by the people is there to back Congress and the President. With that sort of will, this sort of thing could happen
He resisted the Court on the Dredd Scott decision by treating it only to the particular case rather than applying it as a new precedent that bounded his future actions. He basically said that he’d abide by the decision in a given case and the Court would have to rule again, presumably millions of times, to get him to enforce the decision universally.
Why ignore the ruling? Why not pass a new law? Why not start the amendment process? Why not expand the size of the Court? All three would be far better options than to ignore a ruling.
Give us this circus, our daily bread, and forgive us our press passes.
I don’t have a problem with the right to privacy, but I think the court first found it in Griswold v. Connecticut. I just don’t think it gives us the right to kill babies.
My hypothetical assumes the political will by the people is there to back Congress and the President. With that sort of will, this sort of thing could happen.
All of those things would be more effort than just saying “No, that law is still good.” I tend to think people might operate that way.
After seeing the insane and threatening protests inside the Senate, I think it would be dangerous, as well as deleterious to the national conversation, to hold public hearings for nominees. End the gladiatorial spectacle.
Applying that concept to Roe, how would it be possible to resist the Roe precedent? If courts refuse to convict abortionists of a crime, then how can that be resisted? Just keep prosecuting them regardless, knowing that they will always be acquitted?
.