Tuesday, July 05, 2005
Our Newest Op Ed
A Constitutional Candidate, not a "Consensus Nominee"
- By Chuck Busch
The 2005 July 4th Independence Celebration will always be remembered as the weekend when Justice Sandra O'Connor announced her retirement making way for the first reform of the U.S. Supreme Court in eleven years. Over the course of her tenure, she was often the "swing vote" on many crucial rulings sometimes voting with the conservative members and on other occasions siding with the liberal decisions. Her replacement will likely decide the dominant philosophy of the court for the next generation. It will soon be discovered whether all the preliminary jousting over lower court judicial nominees has set the stage for one ideology to prevail.
Judging by the reaction from the left, there seems a great deal of trepidation in the hearts of the Democrats that President Bush's pick might upset the "balance" of the court. Most notable is Senator Clinton's ironical comments delivered in the typical contorted speech of a liberal lawyer. She cautioned President Bush, reminding him of his constitutional duty to seek the "advice and consent" of the Senate and engage in "a process of genuine consultation" (that is to get their permission) in order to confirm a "consensus nominee." If the rancor over previous judicial nominations is any indication, the probability that a "consensus" between Republicans and Democrat can ever be reached is nonexistent. What she is really saying to the President is he must pick a moderate to liberal candidate that is agreeable to the new formidable liberal fourteen-member faction on the judiciary committee that disrupted the nomination stalemate back in June ...........
Click HERE To Read On
- By Chuck Busch
The 2005 July 4th Independence Celebration will always be remembered as the weekend when Justice Sandra O'Connor announced her retirement making way for the first reform of the U.S. Supreme Court in eleven years. Over the course of her tenure, she was often the "swing vote" on many crucial rulings sometimes voting with the conservative members and on other occasions siding with the liberal decisions. Her replacement will likely decide the dominant philosophy of the court for the next generation. It will soon be discovered whether all the preliminary jousting over lower court judicial nominees has set the stage for one ideology to prevail.
Judging by the reaction from the left, there seems a great deal of trepidation in the hearts of the Democrats that President Bush's pick might upset the "balance" of the court. Most notable is Senator Clinton's ironical comments delivered in the typical contorted speech of a liberal lawyer. She cautioned President Bush, reminding him of his constitutional duty to seek the "advice and consent" of the Senate and engage in "a process of genuine consultation" (that is to get their permission) in order to confirm a "consensus nominee." If the rancor over previous judicial nominations is any indication, the probability that a "consensus" between Republicans and Democrat can ever be reached is nonexistent. What she is really saying to the President is he must pick a moderate to liberal candidate that is agreeable to the new formidable liberal fourteen-member faction on the judiciary committee that disrupted the nomination stalemate back in June ...........
Click HERE To Read On
# posted by Publius @ 7/05/2005 02:00:00 PM 
|
