Skip to comments.Why judicial-confirmation battles keep getting more vicious
Posted on 09/25/2018 10:24:59 AM PDT by richardb72
Judicial confirmations have become a blood sport. Wasnt it just weeks ago at John McCains funeral that Democrats were calling for more civility in politics? We never used to fight so much over Supreme Court nominations.
Eighty-seven justices were nominated between 1789 and 1950, and the time from nomination to Senate vote averaged just over eleven days. But this changed dramatically over the next half century. From 1951 through 1975, the average confirmation process increased to more than 50 days. Between 1976 and the present, it has averaged at least 75 days (the average rises to 90 days if we count Merrick Garland, whose nomination lapsed after a new Congress was seated in 2017, though it could be argued that his nomination was rejected immediately).
Democrats have opposed Brett Kavanaugh both times that he has been considered for a judgeship. When he was nominated to the D.C. Circuit Court in 2003, his confirmation battle lasted 1,036 days. There were no allegations of sexual misconduct that caused that delay.
Kavanaughs circuit-court confirmation battle was the seventh-longest of the 366 that occurred from the beginning of Carters administration through to the end of Obamas. Bill Clintons circuit-court confirmation averaged 231 days, George W. Bushs 362, and Obamas 278.
Democrats are hoping to delay Kavanaughs Supreme Court confirmation until after the November election. If Democrats win control of the Senate, they would then vote down the nomination. Democrats may have had information of Kavanaughs supposed sexual behavior when he was 17 since July; by raising it now, after the hearings and just days before the scheduled Judiciary Committee vote, they have timed it to delay the process.
Kavanaughs résumé is stellar. He attended Yale Law School and clerked for the Supreme Court. He has taught at Harvard, Yale, and Georgetown law schools. The Supreme Court has frequently adopted his reasoning on a variety of issues.
Despite Democratic claims, he is not a radical who will overturn decisions such as Roe v. Wade. Kavanaugh was a consistent follower of precedent when he was on the D.C. Circuit Court. While the Supreme Court can overrule its own precedent, Kavanaugh has co-authored a hefty 942-page book on precedent, titled Law of Judicial Precedent. The book seeks to formally describe rules for when courts should follow precedent, and it makes clear that jettisoning precedent is not something that Kavanaugh takes lightly.
But the opposition has always been so fierce precisely because Kavanaugh is so qualified. Democrats dont just fear his judicial philosophy they also fear him because he is smart....
Democrats ended the peaceful transfer of power 60 years ago.
They stuffed the ballots in 1960 and have called for the impeachment of ever republican president in his first term and voice calls for impeachment of an elected republican several times before they were even sworn into office.
...except when a Democrat nominates someone for the Supreme Court. No criticism is allowed and they sail through confirmation with flying colors.
It all comes down to three words: Roe versus Wade.
The day the Supreme Court became the national legislature and authoritarian dictatorship.
Democrats AND Republican used to BOTH have a foundation for their every action and word based in the rule of law and the Constitution.
Kagan and Sotomayer was NOT vicious at all.
Nobody ever questioned anything controversial. Questions about sexuality never came up.
These things don’t happen to Democratic Party nominees.
I think the next time the Democrats nominate someone for SCOTUS they’ll find the game has changed.
This is a game-changing well poisoner.
>>Why judicial-confirmation battles keep getting more vicious
Only confirmations of republicans are getting more vicious. Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan all sailed through without a hitch. Heck, Ginsberg got something like 93 votes to confirm even as rabidly partisan as she clearly was. Only republicans face any opposition (with Garland being the exception)
They keep getting more vicious because the Dems have been allowed to get away with it. They are emboldened with each new nominee by a Republican President, because they know nothing will happen to them.
Because National Review spends more time attacking GOP voters than Democrat congressmen.
I don’t remember ant big todos over sotomayer, Ginsburg, or any other democrat nominee. it’s only the democrats whining and throwing temper tantrums over anybody nominated by a republican. state the truth here - this is all democrat doings.
Its only a blood sport on one side. Its Pop Warner on the other.
I’ve really not seen the R’s get this vicious.
I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson.
Dems see the courts as a uber lawmakers, so controlling them is more important than controlling Congress or the Executive. They viciously oppose candidates that do not share their totalitarian views.
Reps still see the courts in their more traditional role as clarifying the technical fine points of laws passed by Congress.
Shhh. The history revisonists on this board making JFK out to be some kind of heroic Tea-Party type savior who went against the "deep state" don't want to remind people of the pesky facts about the stolen 1960 election.
Just two days ago I was arguing with a Constitution Party member, of all people, who was swooning over how JFK "bridged the partisan divide in this country and appealed to the patriotic virtues of all Americans". Yeah, cuz nothing says "bipartisan spirit" like JFK's incessant speeches bashing Republican politicians for NOT supporting his calls for universal health care and 'free' education for all.
He was inaugurated in January 1961 and assassinated in November 1963. He wasn't even in office for three years, and there was hardly anything accomplished of note in that time that would not have happened with any other president in office.
If he hadn't been assassinated, I believe he would have spent his final years living a pointless existence separate from his wife ... and getting lap dances in the Clinton White House on his 80th birthday.
RATs get most of their “agenda” accomplished by the use of judicial fiat. They cannot afford to lose that advantage because they could NEVER get any of their agenda thru by legislation...the vote of the People. They will fight “tooth and nail” not to lose that judicial ability.....that says a lot about our so-called modern “judicial system”.
Senate rules for confirmation are much too cumbersome and must be streamlined, asap!!!
I don’t see how some of the rules pass muster with the Constitution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.