Redstate

Just remember: only three Senators had the stones to vote against Ginsburg - Helms, Nickles, and Bob Smith.

And dagnabbit, she worked for the ACLU!

member of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Though I agree once his views are on the record absent something unusual he should be confirmed, this is hardly the same thing from a practical standpoint (and yes, I know that some of the actual names put up by the Democrats, such as Sotomayor and Prado, were ludicrous..though others, such as Arnold, were not).

Will spector have the character to reach that level and make it stick?

The contention of "suggested by Hatch" is getting to be a "known fact".

Here's a more, dare I say, nuanced explanation:

http://www.nationalreview.com/york/york200507050949.asp

Regardless - the disconnect between Biden then and Biden now will be a feast for partisans. I guess he will have "grown" to appreciate the changes time has wrought.

While I don't neccesarily agree with the authors presentation of the facts, nothing in my original comment suggested that Clinton immediately listened to Hatch.  All I said is that Ginsburg was "pre-approved" by the ranking membor of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and one of only a handful of people at that.  As Roberts was not one of the "pre-approved" members of the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee this time around (regardless of why that nominee was selected), he'll be subject to greater scrutiny.  

I would hope that the "known facts" doctrine doesn't devolve into such overuse that it prevents people from pointing out things that lack any real question at all.  The "fact" that my post is dependant on is that Hatch suggested Ginsberg, which is true.  It does not depend on whether Clinton first turned to Ginsberg, or whether Hatch suggested Ginsberg because she was "moderate" or not.

Does anyone know where to find a transcript of the particular questions that Ginsburg refused to answer, or the entire transcript of the hearing?  We hear a lot about the fact that she did it, but I'd like some source documents to find out what she particularly and specifically refused.  Anyone?

that surprising.

Helms is the rights version of Teddy Kennedy without the dead girlfriend.

Smith is extremely pro life, I am almost certain that positino led to him voting no on Ginsberg, but I haven't checked.

I don't know anything about Nickles-he has never been my senator.

as a matter of fact I bet he will somehow find a reason to say Ginsberg should have been an exception not a precedent, after all he just has to ask all his questions.

All those of the opinion that the Dem's will do the same, raise your hand.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

Not so fast, Senator McCain.

and a great senator.  FYI,  he passed away about 5 years ago.  

The no vote was from the NH senator Smith (at least I believe so, I may be wrong), and he is still alive, and has moved to Florida after losing losing to Sununu in 2002.

Hatch suggested Ginsburg as someone who would not run into fierce opposition from Republicans.  She was not suggested as "pre-approved."

It also bears repeating that Sen. Hatch made his "suggestions" from what amount to a list of very liberal names, knowing that Clinton had the right to nominate a very liberal judge because he won.  Hatch also did not run around telling the world that if Clinton named someone not on his "pre-approved" list there would be a smear attack campaign waged against the nominee - that Republicans would attack and fight with everything they had to stop the nominee.  They did not say that those not "pre-approved" would be subjected to inapproriate questions.  

Hatch played by civil, traditional rules of the game.  The President gets his person because that's what elections mean.  The Democrats are still under the assumption that they are the true voice of the majority of people and therefore have some obligation to stop the President (who got a majority of votes last year) from doing what the people elected him (and who elected 55 Republicans to the Senate) to do.  And that's simply beyond the pale.

The Democrats did not provide the name of a single person who is as conservative as Ginsburg is liberal.  Democrats have moved the goalposts because it suits them.  They only look to maintain "traditions" and "standards" that suit them.  

is most decidedly not dead.  He's only 64 and ran for the Senate in his new state of Florida just last year.

Then the problem becomes, as your original note acknowledges, whether any democrat on the judiciary committee has recommended a list to the POTUS which includes one of the POTUS choices.

For that matter, the article indicates that Clinton had not considered Ginsburg until Hatch suggested her. What are the chances of Leahy suggesting someone Bush has not considered, but who is very acceptable.

The GOP wins the "reasonableness" test here all around.

The longer term problem is it could be a long while before we see "eccentrics" like a Bork or Douglas again.

He was a strong pro life senator for NH, but his party jump to try to run for the presidency killed him up here.  And Sununu ran a good campaign (and had the political history of his family to give him a boost).  

But instead a question of moral judgements of the two party's actions.  How surprising that you would view the Republicans to be the "better" party.

Personally I would love for Congress to ignore all the hot button social issue questions and ask more important questions such as his views on the Commerce Clause.  His views on how that should be defined would have a FAR MORE significant impact on most people's lives.  

Back to the point of this diary.  Ginsburg is no more a precedent than Thomas or Bork.  Each nominee must be treated in their own context.  While John Roberts should, IMO, be given a relatively easy confirmation that does NOT mean that the Democrats should treat a Janice Rogers Brown with kid gloves.  

Congressman Bob Smith, Oregon - Sorry....

and I am not sure they should have to.

Basically those kinds of questions are attempts to illicit a response that would pigeon hole them on something that may come before the court.

I would much rather stick to some of the basics-I have no issues with in general judicial philosophy type questions, and even Chuckie's "name three cases from the court you disagree with" doesn't bother me a lot, given you can name Plessy, Dredd Scott or some other case that is unlikely to ever be reargued before the courts.

for this Blue State - Oregon - Bush 1 titled "little Beirut"

congress.

I knew who Bob Smith was from NH, because he was my senator for a short while.

He was actually a very good senator, he just shot himself in the foot.

of political gotcha.  I'm not trying to be a better-than-you-Kossack, and, not wanting to be banned, I'm not going to play that game with you.  I simply pointed out why the two situations are different.  

If rel wants to play games with the specific words I used while not addressing my actual point, then fine.  In fact, I'd say by using the specific term "not face significant opposition" actually helps my point a great deal, if we want to quibble.

Restating the question of whether the President chose someone the Democrats already noted their support for as whether the Democrats already noted their support for someone the President chose doesn't make much sense.  The point is not whether  Republicans are somehow morally superior people but whether one can reasonably expect the confirmation to take the same amount of time.

The chances that Leahy suggesting someone that Bush had not considered but who was very acceptable is 100%, as it happened...Judge Arnold.  Once again, that's unimportant to the greater point of whether or not Ginsberg's hearings were abbreviated because the other party had pre-indicated their approval.

understand.

Not necessarily a superior moral standard  either, but certainly the most recent standard. Correct my historical rememberance as needed, but I recall things getting haywire with Fortas, Haynsworth, and Carswell (all for good reasons), and then a lull until Bork, Thomas and lest we forget Douglas Ginsburg.

I'd much prefer a hot philosophical discussion, which is possible, but the attacks on Bork, Thomas, Ginsburg, and to get a little further afield, Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood, started OK but got far too peripheral and irrelevant.

With Ruth Ginsburg and Breyer, the GOP has set the latest standard, and an arguably "better" one, which is not to say it cannot be matched or exceeded. The democrats have their chance now, and will again shortly.

Be interesting to see what they make of it!

This is a Federal judge.  If he can't deftly walk around these kinds of questions then I question his ability to be a Supreme Court justice.  I don't mean that in a snarky sort of way.  But this is a person who has spent their life working with words and their meaning.  I have a hard time believing that he would be tripped up with these sorts of questions.

as the attorney for appellate decisions most likely has been good training in how to deal with them.

In the end, he just isn't going to answer some of the questions, Chuckie and a few others are going to hate that, and use it as their excuse to vote no, but in the end he will be confirmed.

Who is Judge Arnold?

But as Ultra noted with Ginsburg she did receive the explicit approval of the leading Republican on judicial affairs prior to her nomination.

As I have said I really believe that the Democrats best move right now is to treat Roberts with the highest regard and to give him a kiss on the cheek and bless his journey to the bench.  

Politically this was a great move by Bush.  He selected a generally Conservative nominee but one that the Dems can't reasonably assail.  If they do then they will simply allow Bush to get even more Conservative with the next one.  

I think that sets them up nicely for the next hearings when Rehnquist goes.

I'm going to Wikipedia to see what was up with Ike and his recess appointments. I don't think the dems can stall all the way to 2008, but the 2006 situation means next summer's actions could get very interesting. Almost guarantees a series of decisions to use in the fall campaign.

Think anyone will remember who Karl Rove is?

nm

the age of sexual consent should be lowered to 12...

I'm no Ginsburg apologist, but now you're borking her.  The full report is available online:  http://www.eppc.org/docLib/20050608_Ginsburg2.pdf

The passage in question is on pp. 70 - 71 of the report (pp. 77 -78 of the PDF).  Ginsburg merely discusses the gender neutrality of legislation then pending in the Congress, and does not argue for lowering the age.  She states that the passage "conforms to the [gender] equity principle...." Certainly, that is an implicit endorsement of the bill as a whole, and her silence on the age of consent issue does raise a question as to her position on the matter, but nowhere does Ginsburg argue in favor of lowering the age of consent per se.

As for the rest of it, those criticisms seem pretty dead-on.  Ginsburg gave us plenty of ammo here; there's no need to stray beyond the text and read into the penumbras of her opinions.  

It also bears repeating that Sen. Hatch made his "suggestions" from what amount to a list of very liberal names

I heard Hatch on Hannity a few weeks ago and I'm pretty he said that Ginsburg was not on Clinton's list. The way he talked about it Clinton came to him because he didn't want a nomination fight and presented him with a list of possible nominees (with Babbitt at the top of the list). Hatch crossed Babbitt off immediately because of bipartisan opposition, told him that all the others had potential problems, and said "have you thought about Ruth Ginsburg?" because she'd go through without trouble. He also took some credit for suggesting Breyer.

Frankly, it seems like that's more or less just what Bush did here- he wanted a good smart conservative but didn't want a big nomination fight so he talked to senators across parties and picked a guy who just about everyone can get on board with.

I think one should bear in mind the possibility that Schumer is simply using the opportunity for fund-raising.  That is not surprising as both sides have spent the past year soliciting millions for the anticipated battles.  I'm sure that there are groups on both sides (Dobson and NARAL come to mind) that will be sorely disappointed it there is not a violent clash.

As for the "Ginsburg precedent,"  I have to agree that it is inapplicable.  I believe that Roberts' confirmation will be a relatively straightforward affair, with most Democrats voting to confirm.

However, the truth is that Bush did not try and pre-approve Roberts.  Hence, the Democrats are not bound to the same standard as Hatch was.

although I haven't read his comments on Roberts-guess he could be in the Ann Coulter camp on that one.

But basically Roberts seems to fit closely enough with what the Dobson folks desire, why would they want a huge fight-unless you mean Dobson is also looking at this as an opportunity for fundraising-and in that case you are probably correct-a fight would get his face and organization out there often enough that donations may come in that otherwise wouldn't.

Personally I would prefer to see a lot less fighting.

First, he would like -- horrors! -- the opportunity to send out fundraising letters just like everybody else.  

Second, he would like a fight, so that the Right can be victorious.  It's hard to feel like you put one over on the Left if the nominee gets unanimous or near-unanimous consent.

Third, he wants the opportunity to be the kingmaker.  If there was a drawnout fight and he made the difference between winning and losing then Bush would continue to owe him.  As it is, Bush can point to Roberts as payback to Dobson if Bush wants to go in a different direction for next appointment.

stated fact.

I would grant you number one-every group loves an opportunity to ask for more money-but I think the other two can be debatable-maybe correct, but very debatable.

That is indeed my opinion as to what Dobson's goals are.

I may have to start posting the following in the future.

Official Disclaimer:  From time to time this poster will be posting opinions and/or what he considers to be reasonable conclusions, surmises, or conjectures.  At other times this poster will be posting established facts, which can be supported by verifiable documentation.  Sometimes, but not always, the established facts may incorporate links to supporting documents.

This poster leaves it to the wisdom, intelligence, and experience of each reader to distinguish between what is a fact and what is an opinion, conclusion, surmise, or conjecture; however, upon "reasonable inquiry," this poster will be more than happy to identify whether a given statement can be supported by additional documentation.  At no time does this poster consider a "reasonable inquiry" to be a snarky reference to "Known Facts," or any similar attempt to willfully misconstrue opinions as facts.  Have a nice day : )

The reason she was approved so fast is that she was suggested as an alternative by Orrin Hatch (to Lawrence Tribe or some such) to President Clinton after President Clinton approached Hatch for input. The G.O.P. was the minority at the time. I have not heard yet that Bush extended the same courtesy to Harry Reid, but I do admit that Hatch's recommendations clearly reflected a respect for the President's point of view and a respect for Ginsburg that obviously went beyond ideology (and he also suggested Breyer to boot).

So you can't really hold up Ginsberg's and Breyer's hearings as parallel examples because Bush didn't bother to consult in advance like Clinton did. Nevertheless, I'll be highly surprised if there is a successful filibuster.