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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (388586)	6/4/2008 7:59:52 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573921

Why was it irresponsible? Because it chipped away, just a little more, at the framer's intent. The framers never anticipated that highly qualified individuals like Roberts would be borked. Each time it is done, it makes it easier for the Left to justify borking the next one. Borking is a technique applied only by liberals, never by conservatives. It is frustrating to watch it, but conservatives tend to put the Constitution before the need for political power, while liberals consistently put the quest for political power ahead of the preservation of the Constitution. You know this, how? They saw the process as a collaborative one. I, too, have read the Federalist, from start to finish. There is simply NO WAY you can claim Hamilton envisioned a "collaborative process". The following comments from Hamilton make it totally clear that you're dead wrong: "Appointment is the responsibility of the president... there would always be great probability of having the place [the presidency] supplied by a man of abilities, at least respectable. Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment." --- The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his [the President’s] preference, though perhaps not in the first degree. It is also not very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by any subsequent nomination. They could not even be certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal. These remarks make it clear that the Senate SHOULD NOT abuse its power, although it stops short of withdrawing the right. It anticipates that the Senate will behave responsibility, and Obama, Clinton, Schumer, the entire lot of them, did just the opposite where Roberts was concerned.