Legal Commentary

The Supreme Court: The Role Of The Senate

By Big Tent Democrat

Digby points out that Linda Greenhouse, the NYTimes Supreme Court reporter for many many years, is hanging up her pen. Her last column recalls the importance of defeating Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court:

It has made a substantial difference during these last 21 years that Anthony Kennedy got the seat intended for Robert Bork. The invective aimed at Justice Kennedy from the right this year alone, for his majority opinions upholding the rights of the Guantánamo detainees and overturning the death penalty for child rapists — 5-to-4 decisions that would surely have found Judge Bork on the opposite side — is a measure of the lasting significance of what happened during that long-ago summer and fall.

Very true. It reminds us that the Senate should not be a rubber stamp for ANY President. While I really enjoyed Jeff Toobin's book on the Supreme Court, titled "The Nine," I was annoyed by his acceptance that the Senate has no actual say in who is seated on the Court:

[O]ne factor--and one factor only--will determine the future of the Supreme Court: the outcomes of Presidential elections. . . . This is as it should be.

No, that is NOT as it should be. The Constitution says, in clear and express terms, that the Senate has the right and duty to "advise and consent" to the President's SCOTUS nominations. It is absolutely NOT as it should be that the Senate has chosen to become a rubber stamp. What better example than the rejection of Robert Bork? It is time for the Senate to reclaim its Constitutional role.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on July 14, 2008 (boomark / email).