Posted on 10/12/2005 8:03:39 AM PDT by Huck
Look at George Washington's nomination of John Rutledge to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in 1795. If one were to play the qualification (rather than the DISqualification) game, Rutledge should have been easily confirmed. He had chaired the South Carolina delegation to the First Continental Congress in 1774, served as governor of South Carolina in 1779 (after serving as president of the South Carolina Republic from 1776 to 1778), was chosen by the state legislature to serve as the chief judge of the South Carolina Court of Chancery in 1784, and attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 where -- as chairman of the Committee on Detail -- he oversaw the writing of the first draft of the United States Constitution. President Washington nominated him Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 1789, the Senate unanimously confirmed him, and he sat until 1791 when he resigned to become chief justice of the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas. Not bad.
But, in 1795, the Federalists chose to play the disqualification game because Rutledge had publicly opposed the Jay Treaty, a cornerstone of Federalist policy. When Rutledge criticized the treaty, it was still a matter of public debate. Moreover, he does not seem to have known yet about his nomination to the court. His criticisms were part of a public forum on the treaty at a gathering in Charleston, South Carolina. He spoke his mind with reasoned conviction -- something one expects in a democratic system -- but, unbeknownst to Rutledge, a newspaper reporter attended the forum The reporter published a lengthy description of Rutledge's remarks that was reprinted across the nation. Before he knew it, opponents of the treaty everywhere were quoting his line by line criticisms and Rutledge found himself labeled as the leader of the treaty's opposition.
Such reports infuriated Federalists who quickly set out to defeat the nomination (Rutledge already sat as a recess appointee, but still needed Senate confirmation to obtain life tenure). None other than Alexander Hamilton spearheaded the opposition. No matter that Hamilton seemed to suggest in the Federalist Papers that the Senate should not play an aggressive role in rejecting nominees -- at least on purely political grounds. Some even argue that Hamilton considered nomination tantamount to appointment. But faced with the prospect of Rutledge as Chief Justice, Hamilton fought against confirmation and vigorously lobbied senators to defeat the nomination. (So much for original intent.) Rutledge's opposition to the Jay Treaty, he argued, was proof of the nominee's insanity (making him an "unfit character" and therefore susceptible to Senate rejection). Hamilton even went public with that argument in the Federalist press under the pseudonym "Camillus."
The simple fact is that the Senate can reject a nominee for political reasons if they want. Nothing to stop them. And it's been done since day one, by actual framers.
And you have just argued for Democrat obstructionism. We can't have it both ways.
No, I'm not arguing anything. I've demonstrated that obstructing a nominee on political grounds is legal and has taken place since day one. There's nothing to argue. It's a plain fact. I'm not having anything "both" ways. I've been saying all along that the GOP is dead wrong on this issue, and I suspect they are doing it on purpose. I don't believe they want originalists. And I don't believe they want Roe overturned. I think they want you to think they want it, but they don't want really want it. And they use bogus arguments to make you think it's someone else's fault. It's a win-win for them. I simply want my conservative friends to face facts and then do something about it, instead of buying the GOP rubbish.
Of course, Rutledge did get a vote!
... The yeas and nays being required by one-fifth of the Senators present, Those who voted in the affirmative, are--Messrs. Bloodworth, Brown, Burr, Butler, Longdon, Martin, Mason, Read, Robinson, and Tazewell. Those who voted in the negative, are--Messrs. Bingham, Cabot, Ellsworth, Foster, Frelinghuysen, King, Latimer, Livermore, Marshall, Paine, Ross, Rutherfurd, Strong, and Trumbull.
So can Republicans. They just choose not to, and lie to their supporters that it can't be/ shouldn't be done. Hence we get Justice Ginsburg.
That's why the other candidates conservatives clamor for were not nominated.
We don't know that to be true. The president said he picked the best candidate. Was he lying?
It's a shame the Senate is a democratic institution- it no longer has the power to keep the Court from being democratic.
It's no different than it has ever been. That's what the Rutledge story demonstrates. What's a shame is that the GOP lies to its supporters while doing nothing.
Well, it's obvious. Alexander Hamilton was a Bush hater. He obviously opposed Mr. Justice Rutledge because he wanted to set up a precedent whereby even a qualified nominee could be blocked. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths the Bush haters will go to in order to embarrass the President. Fortunately the Bushbots, um, reasonable supporters of the President's inspired choice of Ms. Miers can see through Alexander Hamilton's obvious disdain of President Bush!
The case that a demonstrably undemocratic nominee would have been confirmed- without senators agreeing to the Constitutional Option- is fanciful.
I just can't stand ppl buying these phony arguments from the GOP that get us nothing, and let them off the hook. It's like when Orrin Hatch spent months accusing Dems of opposing Estrada because he's Hispanic. No serious person believed that. It was pathetic.
The Democrats have made fools out of the GOP. The GOP rubber stamps liberal justices without a fight, but the GOP is afraid to nominate a real conservative to the high court. Kind of why I wish Bush at least tried. It might of shown Republicans how to stop another Ginsburg from making it to the court.
The so-called Constitutional option is a farce. Filibustering is just as constitutional as passing a Senate rule forbidding it is. They are both Constitutional options. There are other stories of nominees being delayed over a year because the Senate didn't like them. It's all legal, and it's all been done since the beginning. The feckless GOP is hoodwinking its own by pretending they are victims. They're not victims; they're frauds.
LOL, now that is about the funniest thing I have ever read. Thanks for the laugh. A pick that can only be describe as a compromise pick, is called an 'inspired choice'. Too funny.
Big bump.
You've been carrying a lot of water on this
Salute!
No, the Democrats AND Republicans have made fools out of us. We're as bad an the pro wrestling fans who think the Iron Shiek really did hate Sgt. Slaughter. They are in business together, and they both benefit greatly from the others' presense. And they need the other to be a credible threat in order to maintain their own hold on power. I can't believe how many conservatives believe the average Senator or Congressman is anything more than a poser. It's an ignoble profession. There are very few rare exceptions. For the most part, we're the ones being had.
How is the GOP hoodwinked? They go out complaining that it's the big bad democrats fault, which means they'll get more votes (create a need, then fill it) so they can fight the evil democrats. But they don't really fight. They pretend to fight. Why would a long time serving Senator want more originalists on the court? Doesn't help him at all. Better to pretend to want it, and to blame the others for not getting it, so you can stay in power and have fun and get pork pork and more pork.
Thanks. I probably should have done this long ago, and as it is, I have too much work to do to goof off with this stuff all day, but this isn't just about Miers. It's the whole bag of garbage the GOP is selling, and most conservatives seem to be buying. They get away with blaming others for their own failures (frauds.)
Nope, the Senate originally did not allow the filibuster. Four Senators (of 24?) could 'call the question' ( or 'call the previous question').
From the Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791 , who was on the committee that wrote the rules of the first Senate: "Rule 7 [8]. In case of a debate becoming tedious, four Senators may call for the question; or the same number may at any time move for the previous question, viz, "Shall the main question now be put?" "
IE: it ended the debate if passed by a simple majority, and whatever was before the Senate would then be voted on.
The first attempt to "filibuster" a presidential nominee was on January 16 1792. There was an attempt to block consideration of the nomination of William Short as minister to the Hague in which the tie vote was broken by VP John Adams:
"The numbers being equal, the previous question was by the Vice-President determined in the affirmative. On the question to advise and consent to the appointment of William Short, of Virginia, now Chargé des Affaires of the United States, at Paris, to be Minister resident for the United States, at the Hague, as nominated in the message of the 22d December; "
Years later (1797) an attempt was made to block President Adams nomination of his son John Quincy to be minister to Prussia which was also ended by "calling the question".
I do doubt the Senate would restore it's original rules without extraordinary influence being brought to bear upon it.
It's looks that way, although I am not quite as cynical as you. I think there is hope for the GOP, it just takes extraordinary leadership like a Ronald Reagan to get the slugs in line. I like Bush except he is too much of a compromiser on too many issues, and the GOP leadership in the House and Senate completely bite the big one. The GOP lacks any real vision and leadership. They just want to stay in power. It is sad, but I blame the leadership more than anything. It does not have to be this way.
Well, the whole Miers episode has also exposed the number of sheeple that claim to be conservatives. It's dispiriting to see that there are as many moonbats on the conservative side as there are on the Democrat side.
That's right. The Senate did not allow it. Either way, it's completely up to them. That's my point. Either way is constitutional.
No, they do have a vision, and leadership helps them with it, for their own selfish reasons.
They just want to stay in power.
And that's the vision right there in plain English.
Ask yourself this: Did Orrin Hatch really believe that Migual Estrada was being blocked because of racism against Hispanics, or was he just saying so? Do all these Senators really believe that a nominee can't be opposed on political grounds, or are they just saying so? There are only two options. They are either really stupid or they are frauds, and I just don't think they are that stupid. I think you have to have some sort of skill to be a Senator. You have to be a silver tongued liar, basically.
One thing that has bothered me though is the "blue slips" that the Republicans used to use to hold up nominees. They did away with those when they got into power and therefore the only way the Dems could stop a nominee from going forward was to filibuster. So while the filibuster was unprecedented, we are as much to blame, and just as guilty...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.