Roberts confirmed, 78-22

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

It is my belief that I'm right, so how can I possibly be happy with someone that I think will do the wrong thing?

Isn't that the height of arrogance, though? Not to try to harp on Ginsberg, but she's one of the last two that has gone through this process. Are you meaning to say that you think the republicans should have voted her down simply because they thought she would interpret the Constitution differently than they would?

Again, then EVERY confirmation vote is going to come down to party line. We'd have never filled seats vacated when Clinton was in office (because, if I recall, both Breyer and Ginsberg were confirmed with Republican senate majorities).

It is the right of the sitting President to nominate, and the job of the Senate to "advise and consent". If you want to appoint someone who shares your view of the Constitution and your interpretation, then win the Presidency. The job of the Senate is to make sure the nominee is qualified, but I don't think qualification means you must agree with me on my interpretation of the Constitution.

I am an opinionated individual, but am certainly willing to admit that there are opinions other than mine that have great validity.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Again, then EVERY confirmation vote is going to come down to party line.

Really? Do you honestly believe every member of the Senate in either party shares precisely the same personal ideology? "We are Deomcrat, resistance is futile."

I'm not talking party ideology. Personal ideology. To me, that's the only valid voting basis. I honestly believe that if our representatives actually started voting based on their personal ideology, party-line voting would disappear because the most confirmable candidates would be the ones whose ideology intersects with the most people. Especially when we're talking Constitution. I think there is a lot more crossing of party lines with personal Constitutional ideology than with anything else because Constitutional interpretation is such a fundemental thing that no amount of party affinity is really going to change your mind if you disagree.

But that's not how it works. You can trot Ginsberg out all you want, but the fact is she was voted in because it was politically advantageous for the Republicans to do so. It had nothing to do with whether or not she was the most qualified individual for the job. Same with Roberts, the Democrats didn't oppose the nomination not because they thought he was the most qualified, but because it was the poitically advantageous thing to do.

As an aside, what's your definition of "qualified"? Because if does not involve at least in some part an examination of the person's ideology, then all I see is hard facts such as time served and education history. And if that's the case, why bother having hearings and a vote. Just feed the resume into Monster, put the "Supreme Court Justice" filter on, and see if it fits the bill.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

You can trot Ginsberg out all you want, but the fact is she was voted in because it was politically advantageous for the Republicans to do so. It had nothing to do with whether or not she was the most qualified individual for the job.

Wow - once again we disagree.

Most Americans view the ACLU as a leftist organization. It is not very popular. It would have been very easy to score HUGE political points nation wide, with both their base and many, many middle of the road people who don't like the ACLU, by opposing her and opposing her loudly.

How can you ever find "the most" qualified for any job? I don't think you can. You just find someone who is qualified.

My definition of qualified? I don't know if that can be quantified, but in this case, I would guess it is that the nominee has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to present cogent and articulate opinions of law and of the Constitution as related to legal matters.

Opinions vary widely on the Constitution between great legal minds. I think Scalia is brilliant, but couldn't have disagreed more with him than on his vote related to the recent marijuana and interstate commerce case. Does this mean he is unqualified because he interpretted something differently than I would have? Or than Thomas and Rehnquist did?