This is a quote of Ted Kennedy regarding Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito, spoken to Alito:
SEN. TED KENNEDY (D-MA):Then, there's Frank Lautenberg:“You Have Obviously Had A Very Distinguished Record, And I Certainly Commend You For Long Service In The Public Interest. I Think It Is A Very Commendable Career And I Am Sure You Will Have A Successful One As A Judge.”
SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ):Surprised? Well, it was fifteen years ago, when Kennedy was on the Senate Judiciary Committee (Lautenberg in the Congressional record), and George H. W. Bush nominated Alito. It will be interesting to hear what Kennedy will say now, but logic dictates it will be very hard for the Democrats to fight Alito without contradicting past statements some have made, or looking bad in general. While this theoretically would be the exact kind of battle they would use a filibuster on, as it is likely the last very important appointment Bush will make, it is more likely a terrible one to filibuster, as the Republicans' use of the nuclear option will be viewed as wise and neccessary by the general public.“I Believe Mr. Alito Has The Experience And The Skills To Be The Kind Of Judge The Public Deserves – One Who Is Impartial, Thoughtful, And Fair. I Urge The Senate To Confirm His Nomination.”
Either way, an excellent choice politically (as well as the aforementioned judicially) for President Bush and the Republican Party.
UPDATE: The GOP has added quotes from today, and is calling it Ted Kennedy vs. Ted Kennedy.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA): "Rather Than Selecting A Nominee For The Good Of The Nation And The Court, President Bush Has Picked A Nominee Whom He Hopes Will Stop The Massive Hemorrhaging Of Support On His Right Wing. This Is A Nomination Based On Weakness, Not On Strength." (Sen. Ted Kennedy, "Kennedy Statement On Nomination Of Judge Samuel Alito To Supreme Court," Press Release, 10/31/05)
Technorati tags: Altio.
"logic dictates it will be very hard for the Democrats to fight Alito without contradicting past statements some have made, or looking bad in general."
ReplyDeleteWhat logic? The logic that says that we should ignore his 15 years as a conservative judge?
What's wrong with being a conservative judge? Because the ends don't suit what the liberals might want? Judges are there to judge, based on the laws and the United States Constitution.
ReplyDeleteThe quotes demonstrate that the Senators themselves recognized this fifteen years ago. It will be hard - logically - to now say he is not suited for the position.
"What's wrong with being a conservative judge? Because the ends don't suit what the liberals might want? Judges are there to judge, based on the laws and the United States Constitution."
ReplyDeleteYou're argument was that they are being inconsistent with their prior statements, not that they're political proclivities (against conservative judges) are wrong-headed.
"The quotes demonstrate that the Senators themselves recognized this fifteen years ago. It will be hard - logically - to now say he is not suited for the position."
Helllooooo!! The quotes were made before the guy ever sat on the bench!! He was a lawyer prior to being confirmed. The senators obviously didn't know what type of jusge he was going to be. Now they do. What's the problem??
You're argument was that they are being inconsistent with their prior statements, not that they're political proclivities (against conservative judges) are wrong-headed.
ReplyDeleteI was addressing your point that he's a conservative judge.
Helllooooo!! The quotes were made before the guy ever sat on the bench!! He was a lawyer prior to being confirmed. The senators obviously didn't know what type of jusge he was going to be. Now they do. What's the problem??
That would be a fine complaint if they said he has a shoddy record over the last fifteen years, and has come about his conclusions in the wrong way. But that's not at all what they're saying: They're recognizing his ability to judge, but unhappy with his conclusions. Because his conclusions don't suit their wishes, they don't like him. I don't like his ruling in the partial-birth abortion case, but the way he came to his conclusion is sound.
1. Your original point was that there was something incosistent with praisiing him before he became a judge and criticizing him after, because his decisions since he became a judge reveal him to be very conservative. I think you have admitted that there is no inconsistency.
ReplyDelete1. Now you are making a different argument -- that there is something wrong with opposing a judge based on his decisions rather than "fitness to judge" or some other supposedly neutral criteron. Please. Let's be real. Both sides' positions in confirmation debates are based almost entirely on the judges' conclusions rather than judicial temperment or fitness to judge, and if you believe otherwise, you are being naive. During Clinton's term, you're telling me that conservatives weren't opposing his nominees based on their liberal positions on gun control, abortion, church and state, etc.?
Actually, no. My original point was similar to what you said: It would be inconsistent to say he was qualified to be a judge in 1990, and unqualified now. The only way to do so would be to claim he did shoddy work over the last fifteen years, which is a very difficult case to make. His coming to conservative conclusions is not in and of itself a reason for him to not be confirmed.
ReplyDeleteAnd let's analyze Clinton's appointees: Ruth Ginsberg, a clear liberal, was nominated to replace Justice White, a clear conservative. While the Republican Party knew in advance how Ginsburg would likely judge, they still confirmed her by a 97-3 margin. That doesn't sound like they opposed her for hew views at all, does it? (Breyer was approved 87-9 - also a very non-political margin.)
her* not hew.
ReplyDelete