Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (63987)	5/7/2008 9:35:12 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543013

There are different ways of looking at "qualified". One version is one's resume, the other would be if a majority of the Senate thinks the nominee has a sound judicial philosophy, which is a very loaded term, of course. What gets me is McCain saying now that he expects a Senate firmly controlled by the other party to do his bidding on demand. That is either wishful thinking or the first shot in what would be a long, bloody campaign of gridlock.

To: Lane3 who wrote (63987)	5/7/2008 10:25:25 AM
From: Bridge Player	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543013

I remember all too well the disgusting process with Robert Bork, an eminently qualified jurist. Edit added: not to mention Clarence Thomas.

To: Lane3 who wrote (63987)	5/7/2008 10:48:00 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543013

So how do you see the nomination and confirmation of a justice working? I thought what he described was exactly the process. Actually, in practice, it's not. The Senate can turn down SC nominees on whatever grounds it can get enough votes for. Clinton worked that process about as welll as it could be worked by working with Oren Hatch, the chair of the Judiciary Committee, before sending nominations forward. Bush did it exactly the opposite and what appears to be the McCain approach. It's my presidency and I get to do what I want. Go eat grass.

To: Lane3 who wrote (63987)	5/7/2008 11:02:20 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543013

I thought what he described was exactly the process. The president nominates and the senate confirms unless the nominee isn't qualified. If that is what the process is supposed to be, then that is what the constitution would have said. The phrase is "Advise and consent." The people at the Constitutional Convention had far too much mistrust of any one person or even any one branch to allow the president to have the kind of power that you and McCain describe over who gets appointed to the federal courts.