Past confirmations

Advise & consent. You will hear that often as the Democrats try to justify any opposition against both Roberts and Bush's next nominee. Just remember that as far as the advice goes George Washington set the precedent long ago that he made his own appointments and the Senate had no input in the choice. The only role of the Senate was to pass or fail the confirmation.

That is how it should be. The Senators that think they deserve to be consulted are a little bit full of themselves.

Consent--that should be strictly to determine if the nominee is capable not if their ideology is acceptable.

In reviewing the past nomination votes I thought I would look a little deeper into the dissenting votes.

Breyer's dissenters (Conrad Burns (R-MT), Daniel R. Coates (R-IN), Paul Coverdell (R-GA), Jesse Helms (R-NC), Trent Lott (R-MS), Frank H. Murkowski (R-AK), Don Nickles (R-OK), and Robert C. Smith (R-NH)) mostly cited ethics concerns. What concerns?

Breyer's largest hurdle came when Newsday broke a story indicating that he had investments in some of Lloyd's of London's insurance syndicates. Senators argued that his investments would create conflicts of interest if Breyer would be presented with "Superfund" cases that could affect Lloyd's potential liability. In the hearings Breyer promised to sell off his investments in Lloyds, and to make all of his investments public. However, as the confirmation process was winding down Newsday further exposed Breyer as having been on a three-judge panel in a pollution case where the Kayser-Roth Corporation was sued by Lloyd's of London after being held accountable for cleaning up the site of a chemical spill. The case demonstrated that he had failed to recognize that he had a conflict of interest. (Lloyd's was directly involved in the case, but it was uncertain if his syndicates were.)

Source: History News Network

I think that more should have voted against Breyer.

Ginsburg's dissenters (Jesse Helms (R-NC), Don Nichols (R-OK), and Robert C. Smith (R-NH)) cited ideological issues. Helms specifically cited Ginsburg's pro-gay positions as his reason for opposition.

Sorry, but all three were out of line. Ideology should NEVER be a part of the nomination process.

What happened to Bork is a bastardization of the process. He was voted down strictly for ideology.

What happened to Thomas was initiated because of ideology (and may those people get the justice they deserve) but the confirmation process did bring about some serious questions about ethics. We can only assume that the Senators who voted for Thomas felt those questions were resolved and those who voted against felt those questions left legitimate concerns. Either way, this is what the process is supposed to be about. Is the person fit in character (not politics and philosophy) to be on the Court.

Nothing more, nothing less.