Posted on 11/01/2005 5:26:46 AM PST by NapkinUser
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made the following statement on the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Graham is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“Judge Alito is one of the most distinguished individuals to ever be nominated to the Supreme Court. His qualifications are beyond reproach. As a judge, he has compiled a long track record showing he is a strict constructionist. With this choice President Bush continues to fulfill his campaign promise to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court.
“The American people have rejected liberal judicial activism from the federal bench. I believe some of the over-the-top criticisms from some Democrat Senators are the result of frustration with the fact President Bush, through the ballot box, earned the right to select a Supreme Court nominee. These criticisms speak more to some Democratic Senators problems with the president than they do with the nominee.
“John Roberts was a home run by the President and he will serve the country well for decades to come. The nomination of Judge Alito is equally impressive in terms of his qualifications and judicial philosophy which are very much in line with what the American people embraced in the last presidential election.
“Efforts to filibuster this nomination based on his conservative judicial philosophy will only serve to weaken all three branches of our government. Filibusters based on ideology or judicial philosophy, if utilized by both parties, will create a Middle East style of politics in the Senate.
“If that standard was used in the past, many conservatives would have surely filibustered Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg. They would have looked not at her qualifications, but rather her legal and political philosophy. From a subjective view, she was clearly out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. I think liberals would have tried to apply such a standard to Justice [Antonin] Scalia who conservative views were well-known.
“When John Roberts was confirmed to his position as Chief Justice, he applauded the Senate for understanding the difference between politics and being a judge. I hope Senators understand that advising and consenting is different than selecting. None of us, through the process of advising and consenting, should invalidate the election giving the President the ability to nominate well-qualified judges consistent with their campaign promises to the American people.
“I’m hopeful the Senate will honor the results of the last election and give this well-qualified nominee a full and vigorous hearing followed by a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. To do any less would result in long-term damage to the Presidency and the Senate.”
"I’m hopeful the Senate will honor the results of the last election and give this well-qualified nominee a full and vigorous hearing followed by a fair up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. "
Sort of like the fair up and down vote Miers got...
This more important than one person's feelings. Who gets seated on the court will change the face of America for decades to come.
Cry Me a River, Hugh
Posted by: Dale Franks on Thursday, October 27, 2005As far as the up-or-down vote thing goes, one notes that the problem conservatives had with the up-or-down vote requirement was that the Democrats were denying Senate votes on judicial nominees who had already been vetted, and reported out of the Judiciary Committee. At no point in time has the issue been that every presidential nominee, no matter how unqualified, must be accepted without dissent from the moment of nomination. Nor has the issue ever been that the president's supporters must remain silent to allow any nominee, regardless of qualifications, to complete the nomination process. The whole point of the argument was that qualified nominees, whose nominations were before the Senate, were refused a vote by senators of the opposing party. Conflating that with pundits who have nothing whatsoever to do with the nomination of confirmation process, and who merely express their opinions about the quality of a nominee, is either intentionally intellectually dishonest, or a sign of an sad inability to reason properly.
Thats a little melodramatic. Sending a little kid packed with explosives into Senate chambers would be more like a "Middle East" style of politics.
"If that standard was used in the past, many conservatives would have surely filibustered Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsberg. They would have looked not at her qualifications, but rather her legal and political philosophy. From a subjective view, she was clearly out of the mainstream of American jurisprudence. ..."
Dear Senator Graham,
I agree that filibusters on nominations are an impermissible shift in the balance of powers between the President and the Senate. However, would please explain to me why a conservative Senator is required to endorse a nomination that is "clearly outside the mainstream of American jurisprudence."?
You seem to be admitting that GOP Senators cast votes that are contrary to their principles.
Miers did not receive that considerations because "conservative" zealots hounded her into withdrawal.
Hey, don't be giving the left any ideas.
If, heaven forbid, Democrats hold the White House when the next vacancy (after Alito) comes open, conservatives had better be prepared to engage every tactic to keep a liberal or even a so-called "moderate" from taking that crucial fifth seat.
A "moderate" is just a word for a justice who is faithful to legislate the liberals' most important agenda items into existence but will let the less important (to liberals) stuff slide.
Only conservative justices keep the playing field level so that policy issues can be fought out in the legislatures where they belong.
So it's 2 down, 5 to go. DeWine and Graham have chimed in, McCain seemed like a "wait and see" anybody read anything from the other 4 Republicans of the "gang."
Look at the other side as well. I doubt there will be a filibuster. Nelson of Nebraska is likely to vote in favor of cloture, if a cloture motion is filed.
IOW, I don't see the DEM leadership objecting to setting a time certain to vote on the nomination.
She didn't stick around long enough to get an up or down vote. That only comes after the judiciary committee hearings and vote to pass the nomination to the full senate and then the full senate hearings. Had she gone through the two sets of hearings, she would have almost certainly gotten a vote on the senate floor.
There is a rather long list of appointees who never got an up or down vote because they withdrew their names prior to that point. You might remember Zoe Baird and Lani Guineer (clinton's first two choices for AG before hillary picked Janet Reno) and Linda Chavez (GWB's first choice for AG) as similar examples. This happens all the time and there is nothing wrong with that.
On the other hand, it is not acceptable for the minority to use the filibuster to obstruct the up or down vote to a judicial nominee that has sufficient support to be confirmed. The dems complained when the republicans prevented some of clinton's nominees from even getting out of committee. (This means that the nominee was unable to get a majority vote on the committee, so there was certainly no assurance the nominee would have been approved by the full senate, so for the dems to now use the filibuster to block nominees that have passed through the committee and would easily be confirmed by a bipartisan vote of the full senate is disingenuous at best.)
So what about your hare-brained deal with the rest of the Gang of 14, Lindsey??? You've got a lot of backtracking if you expect to be re-elected. And one of your greatest hurtdes is going to be proving that you're not a moron.
Not really. The principle in play is that "elections matter". Barring qualifications issues, personal issues, or other unknown problems that prevent a nominee from adjudicating fairly, the President gets the benefit of the doubt.
The philosophy issue is a direct challenge to the constitutional process, where advise and consent was meant to ensure proper vetting, and not be a check on the inner workings of the nominee's mind.
The Senator is a good man who appeared to have "strayed" a little recently. I remember the Senator as a former member of my unit (the Senator was an Air Force JAG) and still serves in the AF Reserves as such. That being said I was very upset when he stood as a member of the "Gang of 14" and made a call to the Senators office. His infatuation with McCain is another hurdle I'm trying to get over.
I hope this has all been blips on the radar and we can count on him to do what we in South Carolina elected him to do. If not, he has a very strong (and very conservative) challenger waiting in the wings in Thomas Ravenel.
TD
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.