Roberts confirmed, 78-22

[Nephythys]

and how about the possibility that you are the one who is wrong?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Nephythys

and how about the possibility that you are the one who is wrong?

Yup, possible. But 1) like I said, people who I find that objectionable are few and far between, so I'm pretty confident I'm right, and 2) 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?

[innerSpaceman]

Yes, it's possible. But GD was, I believe, speaking as a hypothetical voter on the confirmation of Roberts. If such a Senator Delight was of the opinion that the candidate for confirmation was reading the Constitution all wrong, it would be incumbant upon Senator Delight to vote "NO" based on the candidate being unqualified to do the job.

It goes without saying that Senator Delight MUST hold his own opinions on reading the Constitution to be the correct opinions, for one cannot have opinions which one considers wrong. The objective possibility may be that Delight is wrong and Roberts is right, but it's impossible for Senator Delight to have that view, and thus his vote must be "Nay."



Edited to add: I wasn't quick enough to say longwindedly what GD said quite sucinctly. But I like mine better, cause I love the concept of "Senator Delight."

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

Edited to add: I wasn't quick enough to say longwindedly what GD said quite sucinctly. But I like mine better, cause I love the concept of "Senator Delight."

And thus a status line is born.

And I like your explanation better anyway. If I'm way off base with my interpretation, and everyone else in the Senate voted with the same guidelines as me (i.e., does the candidate interperet the Constitution substantially in a manner that I deem correct), then he'll be confirmed anyway. But that wouldn't change my vote.

[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.

[Nephythys]

So the message here is- you must agree with MY idealogy (as a voting Senator) or you will not get my vote- no matter your qualifications.

[innerSpaceman]

How could I possibly think that someone who can't understand the Constitution is qualified for the job?

Sorry, but - hubris or not - if I were elected to be one of the hundred U.S. Senators governing the millions upon millions of Americans, I would most certainly be assuming that MY interpretation of the Constitution was the correct one, and that anyone interpreting it differently would be inadequate to competently interpret the Constitution.

It may be a catch-22, but it exists.

[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.

[Gemini Cricket]

I have no opinion on Roberts yet. But we get him as CJ no matter what. My concern is about the O'Connor replacement.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Veering back to the OP for a moment, I have no problems with those statements, even not taking into accont my little side-bar up there. Those senators simply state that they worry that he will not interpret the Constitution and come up with decissions, rather that he will come up with interpretations of the Constitution that fit his ideology. Whether they are right or wrong about Roberts doing that remains to be seen, but I see that as a perfectly valid reason to vote against.