This meant that if a nominee was so anathema to a party, they had a veto.
Rancor and bitterness are hardly new to SC nominations during the Bush years, as witness the nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. If a nominee is so completely unqualified as to be anathema to a party, then they, arguably, should be able to convince enough moderate members of the other side to defeat the nomination in an up-or-down floor vote, as apparently the Democratic party was able to do with the nomination of Robert Bork.
If there was ever a nominee that was anathema to a party, it was Clarence Thomas. Yet he received 11 "yes" votes by Democrats out of the 52 votes that he received when he was confirmed.
Although I believe that Thomas was qualified, he received only grudging support by the ABA, as previously discussed on this board. IMO he was clearly not the best-qualified candidate available to Bush senior for appointment. It was simply an affirmative action nomination, and a nod to political correctness and to the Democrats, given that he was replacing Thurgood Marshall.
For more on SC nominee rancor and bitterness, there is this piece by Orrin Hatch, written in January 2005.
nationalreview.com
Note the various comments by Senators of both parties over the years, with respect to using filibusters to block up-or-down floor votes on nominees, a tactic used by Senators when the ideology of the nominee does not match that of their own personal preference. |
