/* ------------------- begin IP Block script ------------------- Block IP address script Points to php script on blog.racetotheright.com IP addresses are within the script ---------- */ /* -------------------- end IP Block script ------------------- */

Tuesday, August 23, 2005

What the confirmations should be

--posted by Tony Garcia on 8/23/2005

So, Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) is going to press Roberts on his views on abortion. What does it really matter? The bottom line on any Supreme Court nominee is the confirmations hearings should be about their personal record. Are they a crook, are they competent, have they been an upstanding citizen. That is all that should matter.
Feinstein, a moderate Democrat, has emerged as a pivotal figure. Judiciary Committee Republicans have enough votes to send Roberts' nomination to the full Senate for consideration, but Feinstein's committee vote could influence other Democrats.

As the only woman on the 17-member committee, Feinstein said she has a "special role and a special obligation" in grilling Roberts - particularly on his views about the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

"I happen to feel that it would be very difficult for me to vote yes on a nominee I thought would overturn Roe vs. Wade," she said.

Uh, you did confirm Ruth Bader Ginsburg, didn't you? She is a critic of Roe v Wade ("she has criticized the court's ruling in Roe v. Wade as being decided on unnecessarily broad grounds and halting legislative reforms").

Feinstein is setting up the premise the any Supreme Court nominee is an extraordinary circumstance, even if the filibuster is not used for Roberts.
She called the impending debate over Roberts' nomination a "big, big deal."

"I don't think in the last couple of decades there has been a Supreme Court appointment that could more tip the balance of the court," Feinstein said in a speech to several hundred Silicon Valley business executives. "That's how mega this vote is."

But all the while the Democrats are doing 2 things here that Americans should be upset about.

1) They are trying to make the Confirmation process a political campaing. "What's your view on [insert topic of the day]?" This is not the proper role of the process. By answering such questions the nominee would be required to recuse himself from any future cases on those topics. Additionally, the Advice & Consent is to prevent corrupted or incompetent appointees from gaining the appointed jobs. It is not to prevent political opponents from being approved. The corruption is the way that an Executive Branch would be able to coopt the various arms of the Government (like what FDR did with the Supreme Court in order to get decisions favorable to his programs).

2) They are holding different standards. Anti-Roe v Wade beliefs were given a pass with Ruth Bader Ginsburg. This is because the Democrats were about party not their own beliefs when confirming her. They now are concerned about anti-Roe v Wade beliefs from Republican appointees, though most honest complaints about the RvW decision are regarding the improper role the Court took in actually creating laws and being overbroad.

There is nothing that should rightfully prevent Roberts from being given an affirmative vote for confirmation. Don't make the Court about a campaign. We make them life long appointments so they do NOT have to campaign. This, in theory at the very least, helps them to maintain their objectivity.

Democrats of the Senate, stop bastardizing this nation's process.


Blogger Captain Bogs said...

Nice post. I think the Demo's had nothing to worry about w/ Ruth Bader. They knew she was and will be the most liberal member of the court until she dies. Her views on Roe v. Wade will not lead her to vote against a woman's right to kill her baby the next time it comes before the court.

I have always wondered about this right. My aunt had post-partum depression that made her a serious threat to her babies right after they were born, and we had to make sure she never had solo access to them for about two weeks after birth. Why is that wrong, but killing the kid after it is halfway out by sucking out its brains and crushing its skull is OK. The difference is beyond me.

August 23, 2005  
Blogger Tony Garcia said...

You're right, the Dems had nothing to worry about. I love the hypocrisy in it. They are worried about Roberts views about Roe v Wade (as are the uber-liberals) but then, to be honest, they would have had to worry about Bader's position.

I find it disingenuous for anyone (pro-life or anti-life) to support Roe v Wade while not admitting that it was 1) based on nothing present in the briefs or arguments, 2) was overbroad, 3) was not ruling on law (upholding or striking down) but creating laws.

It is that 3rd point that makes me think it should be overturned. And to you liberals: before boxing me as "typical pro-life" you better understand that I am a federalist first. My position on abortion is 1) Roe v Wade must go, 2) The states should decide.

End of story. We can discuss more when we reach that point.

August 24, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home