Just like when Bush I nominated Clarence Thomas? We've been down this road before, this isn't the first conservative minority. It won't change people's views of the parties, and furthermore, how many voters are even going to know who Miguel Estrada is come election day.
It won't change them in the short term, but you have to agree it would be a huge victory for Republicans to nominate a conservative Hispanic, considering most Hispanics vote Democratic. It's a start.
I see you have a fundamental flaw in your thinking No one is pandering to minorities, did it ever occur to you that the minorities and Dems tend to care about the same issues? You seem to assume that minorities are mindless boobs that can't think for themselves. How else can you explain your view that minorites will all of a sudden stop caring about issues and just jump to the other side of the fence because a minority is delievering conservative opinons? makes zero sense
Are you saying that underrepresented minorities don't need role models of their own color? Or just because yours is already represented you don't care about the others.
I don't know what you are asking, all I'm saying is minorities don't blindly support minority candidates without questinoning their views, as evidenced by Clarence Thomas, who isn't supported by most Democratic voting blacks. Whatever else you derive from the post is up to you.
The Rep Senators tabled Clinton's latter judicial nominations in committee. They had no need for fillibuster to get what they wanted. The process ought to change so that the Senate has 90 days after a nomination to vote. Not voting means the nomination is accepted. This also makes the judicial committee's recommendation optional. A question for MadMax: How many judicials nominees has Bush made? and how many have the Dem Senators contested with filibuster? and finally how many judicial nomination did Clinton make in his final two years that were never voted on? The point is that the Dems have been very selective about who they will not approve (versus how grossly unselective the Reps were during Clinton's final years). Saying what the Dems did is an abuse without mentioning this context is just superficial political posturing (and thus the strong attraction TJ has for it).
Point taken, but two wrongs don't make a right IMO. This would make perfect sense. That's probably why it will never happen in Washington.
if this is the direction we're headed with supreme court nominees, we're in for a constitutional crisis. you remember the constitution, right? Nope. Advise and consent, Max. This is the way it is supposed to work. The President can't just force any old jerk through. Even if everythihg changed on 9/11.
Advise an consent does not mean you can filibuster. You are pooping on a sacred document written by some of the greatest Americans to ever grace this hallowed land.
advise and consent has never meant that you can keep a supreme court nominee out because you don't like his politics. that's just not the way it's done...and there's a ton of writings by the people who wrote the words "advise and consent" in the Constitution to back up that assertion. No Worries -- why are you asking me?? i think that stuff is probably in the newspapers.
andymoon...absolutely, if the reasons were political. outlaw presented me with a story about a judge who was passed over by republicans reasons i found offensive to the constitutional principle here.
Yes, but it is a Republican prerogative to say it this way because the Democrats handle it like this ALL THE TIME.
advise and consent has never meant that you can keep a supreme court nominee out because you don't like his politics Max. I really don't think this is true. You can block a nomination because you don't like the politics. Surely you don't think the Framers were that naive that they never thought political opinions would come into play when politicians vote to confirm appointments. Where's friendly fan. He seems to relish this type of thing?
No. The Framers envisioned a judiciary removed from politics. Political parties were just beginning to form at the time of the signing of the Constitution, glynch. Clearly you CAN block a nomination for political reasons...but that's not what is envisioned by "advise and consent" at all...not in the least. Remember, federal judges are appointed for life to avoid the bench becoming a political parlor. This is from an ABA report: http://www.fed-soc.org/judicialnominations.htm "The nomination and confirmation process is the one point at which the political branches may exercise a check on the composition and quality of the federal bench. To these ends, it is appropriate and desirable for members of the Senate and the President to explore the qualifications, character and judicial philosophy of would-be judges. Problems arise, however, when legitimate inquiries into a nominee's judicial philosophy degenerate into thinly veiled efforts to preordain how the nominee will rule on specific issues in the future. Such "litmus test" questions cut to the quick of would-be judges' decisional independence and are properly resisted by the nominees." These stats came from the white house's website: http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/ Since President Bush took office, more appeals court nominees have waited at least a year for a hearing than in the last 50 years combined. During President Bush's first two years in office, only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed compared to a rate of over 90% during the same period for the last 3 Presidencies. This is Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 76 and is very typical of the statements I've seen regarding the Senate's role. They were concerned that the president would appoint his brother or best friend, and not the man most fit for the job. Political leanings are, as far as I've seen, never, ever, never mentioned among the reasons, though the ones listed here usually are mentioned: http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=309&parent=53 "To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though in general a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to preventing the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity."
Max, your first link is from the notorious righwing Fedralist society that has made a career out of politicizing eh Federal Courts! see the following link for numerous links and stories on their systematic many year attempt to interject right wing politics into the courts. federalist society The next link is from the Bush White House, the very guys who insist on trying to push the most extreme rightwingers conceivable into the Federal Judiciary and don't forget about old Ashcroft as the countries top legal officer. I don't think the Hamilton quote really proves your point very well either.
don't be so reactionary, glynch. we can have a conversation without getting panties in a wad. yes, the federalist society's website is used...but the text reproduced is from the ABA...not exactly a bastion of conservative thought. you're right...the second link is to the white house...i don't know if those stats are true or not, but they seem to be verifiable. you're welcome to do the research proving otherwise. you don't think the hamilton quote makes the point? of course you don't. it spells out exactly the concerns that went into the decision as to whether or not the appointments should be approved by a senate or through the presidential nomination alone... it's not even a question, glynch. not even a question. it's a well-recongized principle that politics were not to affect the nomination procedure...that is not why the senate is given the role of "advise and consent." it's just not. i quoted Daschle and some other prominent dems saying the same at one point here. but i'm certain you wouldn't find those convincing, either...so what's the point?
