To: i-node who wrote (388599 ) 6/4/2008 8:35:03 PM From: combjelly Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1573924 "Because it chipped away, just a little more, at the framer's intent." BS. "The framers never anticipated that highly qualified individuals like Roberts would be borked." Again. Nowhere did any of the framers ever go into qualifications. Not once. They did, however, come down hard on the selection process being a collaborative one. "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:" Sigh. You missed the part where he was talking about the limits of executive power.The President is to nominate, and, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the United States established by law, and whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution. The king of Great Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices. He can confer titles of nobility at pleasure; and has the disposal of an immense number of church preferments. There is evidently a great inferiority in the power of the President, in this particular, to that of the British king; nor is it equal to that of the governor of New York, if we are to interpret the meaning of the constitution of the State by the practice which has obtained under it. The power of appointment is with us lodged in a council, composed of the governor and four members of the Senate, chosen by the Assembly. The governor CLAIMS, and has frequently EXERCISED, the right of nomination, and is ENTITLED to a casting vote in the appointment. If he really has the right of nominating, his authority is in this respect equal to that of the President, and exceeds it in the article of the casting vote. In the national government, if the Senate should be divided, no appointment could be made; in the government of New York, if the council should be divided, the governor can turn the scale, and confirm his own nomination.3 If we compare the publicity which must necessarily attend the mode of appointment by the President and an entire branch of the national legislature, with the privacy in the mode of appointment by the governor of New York, closeted in a secret apartment with at most four, and frequently with only two persons; and if we at the same time consider how much more easy it must be to influence the small number of which a council of appointment consists, than the considerable number of which the national Senate would consist, we cannot hesitate to pronounce that the power of the chief magistrate of this State, in the disposition of offices, must, in practice, be greatly superior to that of the Chief Magistrate of the Union. yale.edu Oops. Not the use of caps and the impression that the president's power of nomination is inferior to that of the governor of New York. "and Obama, Clinton, Schumer, the entire lot of them, did just the opposite where Roberts was concerned." Endlessly repeating the same thing won't suddenly make you right.