I practice in the Supreme Court. I've spent decades reading and researching on the actions and intentions of the Framers. Here, however, the lie is on the surface for those who read with care.
As the two quotes from the state, the "advise and consent" power of the Senate over the judicial nominees of the President were given to "the Senate," not to any Committee of the Senate. And Pickering would have been approved by the Senate if the Democrat leaders had followe3d and obeyed these statements from the Federalist and ever permitted the whole Senate to vote.
I do not believe that the reporters and editors of this Dallas birdcage liner are so stupid as to have missed the point that "advise and consent" is for the whole Senate, not just a Committee of the Senate. Therefore, I conclude that they know what they are doing, and are DELIBERATELY LYING to their readers.
Pathetic. But no surprise.
Congressman Billybob
Click here to fight Campaign Finance "Reform/".
Click here for next column: "Why Are We Here?" - the Prequel.
Leubsdorf incorrectly applies Federalist No. 76
Re: "Founders foresaw court fight," by Carl Leubsdorf, Viewpoints, April 4.
I believe that Mr. Leubsdorf incorrectly applies Federalist No. 76 (and the Founder's prescience) in an attempt to describe the current ideological morass as justifiable.
While Hamilton envisioned the Senate's advice and consent role as a check against questionable appointments, that is not what our country is witnessing today. The choreographed opposition to each Bush choice carries with it the ideological warning to not attempt placing strict constructionists (conservatives) in the future. Nowhere (in No. 76 or No. 77) does Hamilton mention that the Senate's duty is to control the ideological makeup of the bench. On the contrary, he makes it clear that the duty to appoint is better suited to "one man of discernment" rather than an assembly of men "of equal, or perhaps even of superior discernment." Furthermore, he discusses at length why.
What Hamilton does warn against is influence peddling, shady characters, pandering and dishonorable appointees. One needs only to look in the rearview for these. President Bush's nominations have been people of strong character. Associating a nominee's commitment to constitutional principles with nepotism or influence peddling demonstrates a competitive willingness that should disturb citizens of our republic.
What we have in this case is a legislative body attempting to assert control over a co-equal branch of government. That Mr. Leubsdorf attempts to cloak a Democratic power play in Federalist paper support is inaccurate at best. If Tom Daschle, Patrick Leahy and company had cast off Ken Lay or Gary Winnick, rather than Charles Pickering, then the connection would make more sense. Let us not forget the incredibly ridiculous skewering of John Ashcroft by the Senate committee.
There is no connection between Hamilton's writing on the subject and Bush's "care" in selection.