Did Clinton really let Republicans guide his decision-making?
But a look at another account of the Ginsburg case suggests that while Clinton did consult with Hatch ? just as President Bush has with some Democrats today ? Clinton's preeminent concern was making sure that, after a series of failed executive-branch nomination, members of his own party, then in the majority in the Senate, would support his nominee. And in Babbitt's case, a powerful argument against his nomination was made by a Democratic senator from Babbitt's own state.
Senate Sense & Nonsense
The Senate should focus its attention on judicial qualifications, not personal political beliefs; the Senate should engage in respectful and honest inquiry, not partisan personal attacks; and the Senate should apply the same fair process ? confirmation or rejection by majority vote ? that has existed for 214 years of our nation's history.
First, some have argued that President Bush must nominate a politically moderate justice to succeed Justice O'Connor ? in order to preserve the Court's current ideological balance. These arguments ignore the fact that judges are supposed to follow the law ? not their own personal political beliefs.
Moreover, President Clinton followed no such command when he filled his first Supreme Court vacancy. If new justices are supposed to be selected to preserve the preexisting ideological balance of the courts, President Clinton didn't appear to get the memo.
Second, some have argued that the president is required to consult with individual senators before nominating Justice O'Connor's successor. But let's be clear: There is no such requirement under either the Constitution or Senate tradition. The Constitution provides for the advice and consent of the Senate, not individual senators ? and only with respect to the appointment, not the nomination, of any federal judge.
Moreover, consultation is not co-nomination. In 1993, President Clinton consulted with the then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch, over the temperament and qualifications ? not the political views or ideology ? of potential Supreme Court nominees
Yet it was not long ago that senators agreed that litmus tests and forced promises to politicians present serious dangers to judicial independence and the rule of law. The Senate overwhelmingly confirmed President Clinton?s nominees to the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, after they repeatedly upheld judicial tradition and ethics by refusing to answer questions about how they would rule in specific cases
It's quite clear this Democratic nonsense about "consultation" with radical leftists is a bunch of FUD meant to attempt to strip the President of his power.
But a look at another account of the Ginsburg case suggests that while Clinton did consult with Hatch ? just as President Bush has with some Democrats today ? Clinton's preeminent concern was making sure that, after a series of failed executive-branch nomination, members of his own party, then in the majority in the Senate, would support his nominee. And in Babbitt's case, a powerful argument against his nomination was made by a Democratic senator from Babbitt's own state.
Senate Sense & Nonsense
The Senate should focus its attention on judicial qualifications, not personal political beliefs; the Senate should engage in respectful and honest inquiry, not partisan personal attacks; and the Senate should apply the same fair process ? confirmation or rejection by majority vote ? that has existed for 214 years of our nation's history.
First, some have argued that President Bush must nominate a politically moderate justice to succeed Justice O'Connor ? in order to preserve the Court's current ideological balance. These arguments ignore the fact that judges are supposed to follow the law ? not their own personal political beliefs.
Moreover, President Clinton followed no such command when he filled his first Supreme Court vacancy. If new justices are supposed to be selected to preserve the preexisting ideological balance of the courts, President Clinton didn't appear to get the memo.
Second, some have argued that the president is required to consult with individual senators before nominating Justice O'Connor's successor. But let's be clear: There is no such requirement under either the Constitution or Senate tradition. The Constitution provides for the advice and consent of the Senate, not individual senators ? and only with respect to the appointment, not the nomination, of any federal judge.
Moreover, consultation is not co-nomination. In 1993, President Clinton consulted with the then-chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Orrin Hatch, over the temperament and qualifications ? not the political views or ideology ? of potential Supreme Court nominees
Yet it was not long ago that senators agreed that litmus tests and forced promises to politicians present serious dangers to judicial independence and the rule of law. The Senate overwhelmingly confirmed President Clinton?s nominees to the Supreme Court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, after they repeatedly upheld judicial tradition and ethics by refusing to answer questions about how they would rule in specific cases
It's quite clear this Democratic nonsense about "consultation" with radical leftists is a bunch of FUD meant to attempt to strip the President of his power.
Facebook
Twitter