PoliBlog: Judicial Politics on Parade

June 16, 2024

Judicial Politics on Parade

This gets to the heart of "advice and consent" insofar as this request is asking for more "advice" than President's normally (ever?) seek from the Senate (especially the opposition) on these types of nominations. From Washington onward, this process has been far more "consent" (or not) than advice. The only part of the nominations process that has a substantial "advice" components are those where Senators make recommendations for District and Appeals Court positions from their state (i.e., just because you think it is so, doesn't make it so).

The issue here is that Leahy is essentially saying that the President had better make concessions, or there will be a major fight. It seems to me that he is asserting a role for the opposition in the Senate that has not historically been present.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont has urged President Bush to avoid a traumatic national battle over the Supreme Court by consulting with him and other leading Democrats before choosing a nominee, should a vacancy occur.
In two recent letters to the White House, Mr. Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said that if Mr. Bush took advantage of a vacancy on the court to select a staunchly conservative judge, it would produce a political war that would upset the nation and diminish respect for the courts.

Source: Senator Seeks a Consensus in Replacing Any Justice

Posted by Steven Taylor at June 16, 2024 10:10 AM | TrackBack

Comments

The end of the article notes that Hatch did the same thing with respect to a possible nomination of Bruce Babbit to the SC. Seems like a reasonable thing to me.

Posted by: Brett at June 16, 2024 11:34 AM

Of course, did Clinton consult with Hatch on his nominations? I think not :)

Indeed, I have no problem with the letter--it just led me to think about the degree to which a President would, or should, heed it.

Posted by: Steven at June 16, 2024 11:43 AM

And, if he is so worried about a political war, he could always vote for the President's nominee :)

Posted by: Steven at June 16, 2024 03:46 PM

The President should heed it if he thinks that a cooperative process is politically wiser than a non-cooperative one. It's pretty clear which Bush will probably prefer. . .

Posted by: Brett at June 16, 2024 04:23 PM

A serious question: in your opinion, could the President nominate a candidate who was pro-life who would not be deemed a "radical conservative" by the Democrats?

Posted by: Steven at June 16, 2024 04:27 PM

It's a good question. Just as in public opinion polling on abortion there are shades of opinion here, probably the same would be true of any judicial candidate, even if the debate would be skewed toward the opinions of activists on the issue. So someone like Pryor who argues that abortion is (always and everywhere) murder is, in fact, a "right wing extremist" if you look at public opinion data. But someone who believes that abortion should be permissible to protect the health of the mother, for example, even if the state may be able to regulate it in other ways, probably would create some opposition, but it would be harder to paint that person as a "right wing extremist" -- depending, of course, on the circumstances of the individual's record.

Posted by: Brett at June 17, 2024 01:32 PM

I honestly don't think that the constituency groups that the Democrats must cater to see such nuances.

Posted by: Steven at June 17, 2024 02:26 PM