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."
OK, I see your point. But I think it is possible to get leadership with a good vision. Call me hopelessly optimistic.
I don't see it that way. Nowadays, we have the Judiciary Committee, which can reject a nominee. In that scenario, 10 votes out of 100 are enough to reject a nominee. The Senate can manage it that way if they want. Or they can filibuster. Or not. I don't care if a nominee gets an "up or down" vote. I just care if my interests are advanced or not. Who cares if Bader Ginsburg gets an up or down vote? I don't. Why should I? I don't care about that at all, and the Constitution does not even require it.
Debate is one thing, denying a vote is another altogether. I've said since the beginning, if the Democrats truly feel a nominee is unqualified, let them debate it all day long. Let them go on record as to WHY they feel they are unqualified. Basically LET THEM FILIBUSTER!
It's our pansy side that doesn't want a filibuster because then THEY have to stay on the job while it happens. Well, darnit, that's what they get PAID for. Bring out the cots!
And the fight, that so many here say was a bad thing for us to want... HELLO!? Get the Dems on record with their kooky beliefs & opposition. Let JRB state her position and let the Dems attack. I TRULY believe the majority of Americans would side with JRB, and originalism. No doubt about it in my mind!
Amen!
Hmmm...interesting theory.
this is my tipping point
the GOP needs a reckoning...or at least a good try at one
I'm tipping towards apathy.
until something better and viable comes along I will still vote for the sorry lot
in the meantime...fights...like this one....to make them heel to course
Yeah, I'll still vote. But correct me if I am wrong. I could have spent the last, let's say 30 years, just voting GOP without knowing a single issue, or even what the candidate stands for, and I'd be doing just as good a job as if I paid attention. I am starting to wonder what's the point of bothering. Unless we're going to replace the Democrat party with a viable pro America party, aren't we stuck on the plantation? I voted libertarian in 00. My vote for GW in 04 was the first time I ever voted for either major party on the nat'l level. State politics is a little different. I actually like my congressman, Scott Garrett. I think he might actually be a good egg.
that is a good point....what does it matter more or less unless droves don't vote or go third
'
the Dems have passion....a lot of us do not
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.