Replies

And if the President nominates say, Justice Brown and she does get shot down, it will still set a precedent.
There will never again be a Ginsburg, either.

I bow to no one in my contempt for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's political philosophy. However, she was nominated by the lawfully-elected president (Clinton, in 1993), and, based on historical precedent, she was well-qualified. That is, she is quite intelligent, had no disqualifying moral vices, and was well-versed in the law. The fact that she was a flaming ACLU left-wing ideocrat should have had no bearing on the approval process. And, guess what? It didn't. She received 96 votes in The Senate.

A true believer in The Constitution welcomes the right of a sitting president to appoint highly-qualified judges, regardless of their political persuasion. Liberal presidents should be free to appoint liberals, and conservative presidents should be free to appoint conservatives. The only caveat is that they should be highly qualified.

If we fail to do that, then we have made Chuck Schumer the arbiter of the Constitution. If 40 senators on either side can effectively stymie a qualified nominee, we will be left with a legacy of mediocrity, stealth candidates, and Souter-esque surprises. For crying out loud--there are nine (count 'em, only nine) Supreme Court justices and they serve for a lifetime. In most cases, that's about 30 years. It's high time we settle this usurpation of the Constitution by a small gaggle of liberals, and return the prerogative of judicial nomination to the President, where it belongs. The Senate should be forced back to its pre-Schumer position of advice and consent, making sure that nominees are qualified, irrespective of their politics.

The only Republicans back in August 3, 1993 to vote NO on Ruth Bader Ginsburg, of New York, to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States were:

Helms (R-NC)
Nickles (R-OK)
Smith (R-NH)

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=103&session=1&vote=00232#position

100% agree. Abortion is the cause of this usurpation. No other issue divides the nation so much. the elected leaders kicked the issue to the courts and now the courts are paying the price. We should kick the issue back to the elected leaders and to the States. With the cheap interstate travel I do not see a problem. Hell NOW and ACLU would have charted buses from non abortion states to pro abortion states.

A true believer in The Constitution welcomes the right of a sitting president to appoint highly-qualified judges, regardless of their political persuasion.

I disagree. I think the GOP capitulated to anti-Constitutional pressure when they voted to confirm a Justice that they suspected would "legislate from the bench."

Liberal presidents should be free to appoint liberals, and conservative presidents should be free to appoint conservatives. The only caveat is that they should be highly qualified.

They can nominate whoever they want. The "caveat" in all cases is that the Judge should follow the Constitution when rendering opinion and judgement from the bench.