No one has any idea how many peole asked to NOT be considered. I know that Owens took her name out of the running, and Scalia said that he really didn't want to go through another confirmation hearing (for the CJ position that Roberts now has).
MNJohnnie is correct. The pundits are railing at Bush, but they can provide no evidence that he would have been able to get a paper-trail conservative through the confirmation process with the Senate. The pundits have given the senators a pass, and in my mind by ignoring their part in this problem are being most dishonest.
The president has tried to fulfill every promise he has made. If you are concerned about Social Security, look at the foot-dragging in the Senate. Immigration reform requires more than an executive order; it requires some support from the Senate. Kyl has introduced a bill, but where is it now?
I am sick to death of the punditry acting like they are the arbiters of all things conservative, and that Bush is some sort of dim-bulb chrony-appointing idiot who doesn't care about the Constitution. They have no room to talk.
George Will wouldn't support the nuclear option on the filibuster. Coulter didn't like Roberts and wrote a mocking column about him. Levin was part of the vetting group for Kennedy (who had a paper trail and was considerd a good conservative pick). The National Review thought that Thomas was another Souter. Frum was on record this summer saying Miers was a possible pick and had nothing to say about her lack of qualifications then.
There's the paper trail the pundits have left, and it isn't pretty, is it? It shows that they are NOT infallible, that they can be wrong about nominees, that some don't support any solution that has been suggested, and that they are nothing but a bunch of whiners.
So I am with MNJohnnie. Let's see THEIR record of success. What is THEIR strategy? Put up or shut up, pundits!!
The track record of the *pundits* is the same as that of FReepers who didn't focus energy on defeating the unconstitutional filibuster.
You live, you learn.
He made the argument that the use of cloture to avoid voting on a nominee is constitutional. The fulcrum for his argument is "it stands conservatism on its head to argue that what the Constitution does not mandate is not permitted." and "the Constitution says each house of Congress "may determine the rules of its proceedings."
http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032105.asp
George Will has reached the wrong conclusion. What cloture abuse does is shift the balance of powers between the Senate and the President. That shift is between the "offices," and if acquiesced to, becomes the new norm. It is not conservative to shift the balance of powers without amending the Constitution.
The literal language of the Constitution does not mandate the Senate to hear impeachment trials, the literal language is "The Senate shall have the sole power to try impeachments." Under a literal read, the Senate could refuse to have impeachment trials. I won't label that "unconstitutional;," but it would mark a shift in the balance of powers between the House and the Senate.
Mr. Will likewise overextends the phrase "may determine the rules of its proceedings" by failing to grasp the limiting nature of the words "its proceedings." The Constitution doesn't say the Senate can change balance of powers - it says they can monkey with their own business - its proceedings.
The GOP has conceded cloture abuse as a legitimate tool in the case of nominations. That makes them "not conservatives" in my book, on that point.
The lack of grasp and passion on this subject is a big disappointment to me. The nature of judicial nominations, the nature of our public dialog has been altered, to the detriment of conservatism, by permitting cloture abuse to exist without no passionate objection.