Words That Will Haunt

The Washington Post ^ | Wednesday, September 21, 2005; Page A22 | Unsigned

[.cnI redruM]

IN ANNOUNCING his opposition yesterday to the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be chief justice of the United States, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made a remarkable statement: "The president is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary." Leave aside the merits of the Roberts nomination, which we support; if Mr. Reid regards Judge Roberts as unworthy, he is duty-bound to vote against him. But these are dangerous words that Democrats will come to regret.

This country has only one president at a time. That president, right now President Bush, is tasked with naming judges. The Senate has the role of providing advice and consent on the president's choices, which is a significant constitutional task. But if the presidential election means anything in this arena, it must mean that the president's choice has a heavy presumption of confirmation. That is the way the system works. Why else would Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have received only a handful of no-votes among them?

[.cnI redruM]

Someone check my source. This must have been The Washington TImes. Yeah, that's it.

[OldFriend]

No doubt dingy harry's stroke will be blamed for his lack of comity.

[.cnI redruM]

>>>lack of comity.?!

The Senaotr from Nevada has the fundamental disposition of a sex-starved cobra.

[2banana]

Yet during those six years, the Senate confirmed 245 of President Bill Clinton's judges. If Republicans had been applying Mr. Reid's standard, they would have been within their rights to reject them all. Who's Blogging? Read what bloggers are saying about this article. A Knight???s Blog the political pit bull :: Main Page Captain's Quarters Full List of Blogs (3 links) »

Do Democrats really want the American confirmation system to move in that direction? Republicans may still be in the majority the next time a Democratic president nominates a justice. Is it now okay for them to vote against a person who -- as Mr. Reid put it of Judge Roberts -- is "an excellent lawyer" and "a thoughtful, mainstream judge" who may make "a fine Supreme Court justice" simply because the nominee doesn't represent their ideal?

Democrats will change their tact - their own words never shame them...

[OldFriend]

I guess my attempt at sarcasm was a bit lame!

But if I said what I really think I'd be banned...deservedly so.

[TexasGreg]

Do Democrats really want the American confirmation system to move in that direction? Republicans may still be in the majority the next time a Democratic president nominates a justice. Is it now okay for them to vote against a person who -- as Mr. Reid put it of Judge Roberts -- is "an excellent lawyer" and "a thoughtful, mainstream judge" who may make "a fine Supreme Court justice" simply because the nominee doesn't represent their ideal? When that day comes, and Democrats cry foul, remember what Mr. Reid said about how little deference he believes he owes Mr. Bush concerning Judge Roberts.

A translation is in order here, but it's not surprising that the Washington Post doesn't realize it. Reid is speaking "Democrat" ... which is a different language than English. Reid is saying that "Republican Presidents deserve little deference" in such nominations, while "Democrat Presidents must receive full deference." That's what Reid really means; don't ever attempt to hold a Democrat to the surface meaning of his words because the standards he sets for others he will not be held to himself.

[Polyxene]

I think the pathetic, squinty-eyed old coot had problems long before his stroke. Maybe the stroke just exacerbated them. He is turning out to be worse than Daschle -- something I never thought possible!

[theFIRMbss]

>This country has only one president at a time . . .

Try to imagine
a business run by two teams
of executives . . .

They constantly fight
and undercut each other.
Would anyone think

the business would thrive?!
Would shareholders endure it?!
Politics must change.

[CyberAnt]

"The president is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary."


Stunning arrogance or blatant stupidity on full display.

Poor Harry .. his statement is so stupid even the Washington Post can't handle it.

[CaravanBarker]

Surely it can't have escaped the attention of the president, Cheney and Rove, that the potential nominee that the MSM, Dems and RINOs fear the most is Janice Brown. This brilliant woman would pose big problems for them. Selecting her would be a master stroke for Bush.

[.cnI redruM]

Hey Harry, that old, ugly looking scrap of paper you just wiped your butt with, that was The Constitution.

[Sefton]

"Dems and RINOs fear the most is Janice Brown"
I have been hoping but haven't heard that she's being considered. What is the best way to promote her nomination?

[conservativecorner]

When the WaPo opens up a can of whoop ass on a liberals point of view, you know they have to be living in bizarro world.

[.cnI redruM]

It's the journalistic equivalent of asking Sen Reid to call in when the shuttle has landed.

[Sefton]

Heard on the radio last night that one of the reasons dirty harry used in reaching his decision was Roberts twenty years ago Roberts used the horrible words, "illegal amigos." May disbarment is in order?

[joyspring777]

Anyone who ascends to the position of Democratic leader in the US Senate MUST do homage to the same people and positions.

That is why Reid has morphed. He knew it when he took the job. They always test the knee BEFORE they are elected so they can make sure it works regularly. He had to check his conscience at the door.

[OESY]

[MNJohnnie]

But these are dangerous words that Democrats will come to regret.

All right which one of you Freepers hacked the Wash Poop webwsite and replaced their article with this one?

[Huck]

But if the presidential election means anything in this arena, it must mean that the president's choice has a heavy presumption of confirmation. That is the way the system works.

Not to be a pain in the arse, but show me the plain language in the Constitution which requires the Senate to give a "heavy presumption of confirmation." I don't think it's there:

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2:

"...and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court..."

How does one get from "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate" a "heavy presumption of confirmation?" It might be traditional, but it's certainly not required by the Constitution. A plain reading makes the case for quite a lot of deference to the Senate. It's not just with the advide and consent of the Senate. It's by and with. What does that mean, by and with? By the advice and consent of the Senate, it seems to me, puts a heavy presumption that the Senate gets to consent or not.

[Huck]

Stunning arrogance or blatant stupidity on full display

If you feel like it, see my post #19 and tell me where I'm wrong. Are we not textualists?