The retirement of Sandra O'Connor of course throws into brighter light the many issues involved in the role of a Supreme Court Justice. An interesting piece of it is the inconsistency in discussions by rightists. Take this example, a comment to a post at Volokh Conspiracy. There, in the happy land of originalism, libertarianism, and conservatism, we have the friendly suggestion that depends on one never having read the Constitution, Mr. Jenkins suggests the Constitutional order is that the President should be free to have anyone at all confirmed (if the person meets the most meagre of standards). Well, let him speak:
If the Senate confined itself to determining the qualifications of the candidates (education, background, are you a felon, etc.) then at least some of the unnecessary combatitiveness could be removed from the process. The fact is that the constitutional order presumes that the president can appoint those people whom he chooses, and absent patent inability or background issues (the aforementioned felonies, ethical lapses, etc.) those people should be confirmed by the Senate.
Pretty good explanation of "advice and consent" provided English is not among your languages. The order assumed by the Founders was nothing of the sort -- they expected consultation and then confirmation. This is not even plausible independent of the Constitution. All it takes to be a Justice is not be a felon? I hope more is required; what makes it implausible is that it makes confirmation pointless.
Recent Comments