Posted on 11/17/2005 8:38:07 AM PST by RWR8189
The writer, of Omaha, is Nebraska's junior U.S. senator.
During his confirmation hearings, John Roberts said that judges should judge each case on its own merits. They need to weigh matters, not approach their work as ideological automatons.
Those words were recounted in a Oct. 28 World-Herald editorial that recommended U.S. senators keep Roberts' considerations "firmly in mind" as they consider the next nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court and fulfill their obligation in considering appointees.
With one successful and one unsuccessful Supreme Court nomination behind us, the Senate now is considering the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. By all accounts, Judge Alito is a nominee with impeccable judicial credentials and experience.
That's both the good news and the bad news. His background and extensive record on the appellate court are fodder for all sides in the debate. His record can be used to prop him up or tear him down.
Just days after his nomination was announced, the battle has been fully joined. Already, in Nebraska, television advertisements sponsored by Washington special-interest groups have been carried over the airwaves.
Senators would do well to heed the recommendation of The World-Herald's editorial page to block out these special-interest attacks and focus on the nominee's ability to judge each case on its merits. The ads and the fight can become a distraction for some.
For me, when it comes to judicial nominees, the issue is judicial activism. Does the nominee want to make law or apply law? The answer to this question is central to the constitutional ideal of separation of powers and could disclose the intent of a nominee to act as a legislator instead of an adjudicator.
For the most part, what I've heard from Nebraskans when it comes to considering Supreme Court nominations is that they want the president to appoint and the Senate to confirm a "good judge" and, in the process, to avoid labels and resist litmus tests. The special-interest groups in Washington have litmus tests and expect nominees to adhere to them.
In my meeting with Judge Alito on Nov. 2, he assured me that he was carrying no political agenda to the bench. I asked him if he envisioned himself carrying a hammer and chisel and looking to forge new law. He assured me that he would consider each case on its merits and would bring no agenda to the bench.
The president's nominees, especially to the Supreme Court, deserve an up-or-down vote, even if the nominee isn't popular with the special-interest groups in Washington. As a former governor who appointed the entire Nebraska Supreme Court and the entire Nebraska Court of Appeals and more than half the current judges in Nebraska, I understand how important appointments are to our judicial system.
What the John Roberts appointment showed us is that the process can work even in the most partisan atmosphere. What the Harriet Miers nomination showed us is that it's not always partisanship that derails the process.
Perhaps the Alito appointment could show us all that judges can act independent of their political agendas and avoid the traps of judicial activism.
Well, that's one!
Alito is neato.
Of course, he wants to be re-elected next year to the Senate in a deep red state.
Some Cornhusker tell me -- is Nelson actually more conservative than Hagel? Or is this just an election-year skin-saving?
That could be true...but is this automatically a bad thing? He is,after all,representing his constituents,unlike McCain and others.
That spells the end of any "filibuster" talk. Lieberman will join him, for certain.
Omaha, here!
I feel Ben Nelson is more reliably conservative than Hagel is. Hagel is a loose cannon; Nelson will at least ponder both sides.
This is a good sign. Alito is favored to be confirmed, though it's not yet in the bag.
If he does get on the court, we need to hope for more voluntary vacancies on the Surpeme Court.
Oh yeah baby! I am loving it.
Bush really recovered well from the Miers debacle with a strong nomination. More power to him.
Thanks, LBW. That's kind of what I suspected. Always great to hear from Omaha. I only visited once, briefly, and really enjoyed the people and the area. I went over to check out Boys Town -- whew, that was a pretty impressive campus -- looked more like Harvard than an orphanage.
Well, thanks. We like it here.
It's actually Girls and Boys Town now, officially. Gotta be politically correct.
And you are right, it does look more like a college campus than an orphanage, but several years have passed since Mickey Rooney...
Any state that gave us Johnny Carson, Harold Lloyd and Richie Ashburn is okay by me. I remember when you briefly had your NBA representatives, the Kansas City-Omaha Kings. But yeah, I'm sure things have changed a bit since Spencer Tracy was playing Father Flanagan!
Nebraska is an all-Red state. But it's not as Red as you might think judging by its presidential voting pattern. Of course, in many parts of western Nebraska, Democrats are an endangered species. I think we have five or six left in my county. I really should do a count this winter. |
|
Stevens will retire. Then the President can ease Democrat concerns about a lack of diversity on the Court by nominating Janice Rogers Brown to replace him.
It's a nice thought, but Stevens won't retire while Bush is in office. A more likely senario is that Anthony Kennedy will retire (he allegedly had hoped to become Chief Justice), at which point Bush could nominate the brilliant Michael Luttig.
Faster, please.
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.