Posted on 03/28/2016 11:08:09 AM PDT by jazusamo
If there is one thing that is bipartisan in Washington, it is brazen hypocrisy.
Currently there is much indignation being expressed by Democrats because the Republican-controlled Senate refuses to hold confirmation hearings on President Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia.
The Democrats complain, and the media echo their complaint, that it is the Senate's duty to provide "advice and consent" on the President's appointment of various federal officials. Therefore, according to this claim, the Senate is neglecting its Constitutional duty by refusing even to hold hearings to determine whether the nominee is qualified, and then vote accordingly.
First of all, the "advice and consent" provision of the Constitution is a restriction on the President's power, not an imposition of a duty on the Senate. It says nothing about the Senate's having a duty to hold hearings, or vote, on any Presidential nominee, whether for the Supreme Court or for any other federal institution. The power to consent is the power to refuse to consent, and for many years no hearings were held, whether the Senate consented or did not consent.
Nor have Democrats hesitated, when they controlled the Senate, to refuse to hold hearings or to vote when a lame-duck President nominated someone for some position requiring Senate confirmation during a Presidential election year.
When the shoe was on the other foot, the Republicans made the same arguments as the Democrats are making today, and the Democrats made the same arguments as the Republicans are now making.
The obvious reason, in both cases, is that the party controlling the Senate wants to save the appointment for their own candidate for the Presidency to make after winning the upcoming election. The rest is political hypocrisy on both sides.
(Excerpt) Read more at creators.com ...
Dr. Sowell nailed it!
Bookmark
Bump!
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
the "advice and consent" provision of the Constitution is a restriction on the President's power, not an imposition of a duty on the Senate
I don’t think I’ve ever seen Dr. Sowell call a supreme court justice a “whore,” before.
Not saying he isn’t one; just saying it seems pretty strong for him.
I was surprised as well and agree with him.
Dr. Sowell nailed it!
LOL. He could have said only that. Says it all. We could call it a Scalia-ism.
Let’s be honest. Judges are politicians. They belong to political parties. Our Founders weren’t prescient enough to envision this two-party system we have, a system in which justice, constitution, tradition, simply are irrelevant.
If you put a liberal question to liberal judges, they will approve the liberal position and justify it with a lot of fluff.
We seriously need to term limit judges, and I mean short terms. One senatorial length term of 6 years at each level of the federal judiciary. After that they go back to chasing ambulances.
Don’t listen to Sowell; he’s a Cruz supporter.
Yep, lukewarm now but ice cold at the start. :)
So now all his opinions on topics unrelated to Republican candidate preference are to be ignored, opposed and/or censored? Just because of his audacity in disagreeing with you on who is the best Republican candidate? Let me know when I should take all the Sowell books I own to your official book burning event.
We could call it a Scalia-ism."When judges act like whores, they can hardly expect to be treated like nuns.”If judges confined themselves to acting like judges, instead of legislating from the bench, creating new "rights" out of thin air that are nowhere to be found in the Constitution, maybe Senate confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominees would not be such bitter and ugly ideological battles.
I recently saw a video in which Scalia did say exactly that, if in different words.
I’m certain that term limiting judges is the ONLY way to go in a two party system. Pretending that judges are not partisan is fantastical thinking.
Yes, but the fundamental problem is the voters who will tolerate and encourage the nomination/confirmation of quasi-judicial legislators. What difference would it make to replace quasi-judicial legislators, no matter how frequently, with other quasi-judicial legislators?Such voters delegitimate democracy.
Shakespeare’s Hamlet says, “Get thee to a nunnery.” I read somewhere that “nunnery” in this case meant “brothel.”
I see judges role in a perfect world as honorable arbiters of justice and law. They are the supposedly neutral referees to which we take complex disagreements.
When they cease being honorable, you are correct that it doesn’t do much good to replace life-termed dishonorable people with a series of dishonorable people.
But it does a little good. You can at least turn them over and get rid of them.
Sowell is a national treasure. It's a tragedy that, when this octogenarian checks out, the President can't nominate, and the Senate can't confirm, his actual (make that real) replacement.
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.