Legal Commentary

"Deference" To The President's Judicial Nominees

By Big Tent Democrat

During the nuclear option fights of the Bush Administration era, I always argued against those who claimed that the Senate owed the President unfettered deference regarding judicial nominees. At best, the argument went, the Senate could only consider the nominee's "qualifications." I categorically rejected that view, arguing that the Senate's advise and consent Constitutional role provides the Senate not only the freedom, but the duty to consider all aspects of a nominee's record, including, maybe even especially, their ideology. After all, Senators are elected too.

I am pleased to see that the hypocrisy of the Republican position on this matter will be exposed now. For example, Republican Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS) has already announced he will oppose the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS:

Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) became the first senator Thursday to go on the record to say that he would vote against Judge Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court. . . . "I do not plan to vote for her," Roberts told radio host Chris Stigall on KCMO Talk Radio 710 this morning.

Roberts' objection can not possibly be related to her qualifications. It must be about what he perceives is Judge Sotomayor's ideology. So the falsehood about deference to a President's judicial nominees is completely exposed. This is a good thing and as it should be.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on May 28, 2009 (boomark / email).