Replies

dub me shapka broham wrote: What, pray tell, is "unconservative" about insisting upon a meritocracy? Not that I'll actually receive an answer, but your statement did pique my curiosity.

Because the Constitution doesn't say anything about a metirocracy.

Section 2: Clause 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

You bitchers say you want strict constructionists, well the Constitution says that the power to nominate SCOTUS judges is the president's and the president's alone subject only to the advice and consent of the Senate.

There's nothing in the Constitution about the confirmation process being subject to a popular referendum

This has nothing to do with the public appeal of any given candidate, but everything to do with the responsibility of our representatives in public office to reflect OUR interests, OUR thoughts, and OUR values while in office.

No, I don't think that public opinion should dictate every decision made by our public servants, but when the peoples' wishes are so flagrantly disregarded-in such a cavalier manner as this-then you have to wonder what the value of republican-lowercase r-government is.