Precisely WHAT ARE THE CONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENTS for a person to be seated on the Supreme Court?
I have always maintained that Miers far exceeded the qualifications mentioned in the Constitution.
The subterfuge of saying "she withdrew" that people have adopted is extremely disingenuous. There is only one reason that Brownback and other conservatives demanded the clearly executive-privilege-protected documents from the White House, and that was to deny her a vote. This is precisely the strategy Krauthammer (and others) described. Had they held the line to protect that important Constitutionally-based principle, Miers would have had her vote, and they would have been free to vote against her at that time.
I have steadfastly maintained that we ALL be faithful to the Constitution throughout all these judicial nomination processes. A filibuster by the Senate is unConstituitional, blackballing by demanding the executive branch give up their perogatives is unConstitutional, imposing a "litmus test" for experience is unConstitutional, demanding a certain political leaning is unConstitutional, etc.
You all who fought Miers by making such demands were just as destructive to this process and just as reprehensible as the Demodogs when they were filibustering Brown, Owens and Pryor, and just as unConstitutional with that behavior. All bets are now off as to what will go on in the future. My concern is NOT with the single issue of Alito whether he is confirmed or not, but with the whole process now being driven by unConstitutional issues, instead of being faithful to the Constitution. Prior to Miers, ONLY the Demodogs were behaving in an unConstitutional manner - now the self-designated "conservatives" who inexplicably maintain they care about what the Constitution says have themselves abandoned it in the confirmation process.
I'm relieved that The President didn't choose Gonzales, but EVEN HE deserved an up-or-down vote had he been nominated.
I hope Specter is strongly willing to go to bat for Alito - if not, this particular nomination will go down in flames. Such an occurrence is likely to forever cripple the Constitutional power of The President to appoint USSC justices with the Senate's "advise & consent". I am definitely not comfortable that we've given Specter this much power.
You're full of crap. She'd have gotten a vote if she wanted it.
I stopped reading there. By your standard, Pee Wee Herman is "constitutionally qualified".
The Constitution sets minimum standards. That doesn't mean that the nation as a whole can't expect a higher level of qualifications out of its candidates. For example, if a 25 year old homeless bum was nominated to be Secretary of Defense, do you really think you might not think that he is unqualified?
. There is only one reason that Brownback and other conservatives demanded the clearly executive-privilege-protected documents from the White House, and that was to deny her a vote
How does doing such deny her a vote? The President could have said no, and still proceeded with the vote. If you can't tell the difference between a filibuster and people expressing opinions, then I can't help you further.
The Constitution is a document that restricts the power of the federal government. How can FReepers, writing on a message board, in any way shape or form do something unconstitutional?
demanding a certain political leaning is unConstitutional, etc.
We weren't demanding a political leaning. We were demanding an originalist scholar.
I can't believe that you possibly equate a Senate rule that tries to create a 60-vote super majority with people posting their thoughts on a message board. More likley, I think you are just being a sore loser about Meirs.
You have no idea what you're talking about. It's sad, really.