Friday, July 01, 2005
Justice O'Connor Retires
Sandra Day O’Connor has left the house. She’s 75 years old, so it is about time. Supposedly, she is the “swing vote,” but I don’t know. The whole bunch of them look fairly conservative to me. (Well, maybe not Ginsberg.) Now that O’Connor is retiring, the praise is flowing so freely you would think she had died.
It looks like Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, one of the “gang of 14” will have a significant role if there is to be a confirmation fight. The “gang” agreed to numerous Bush judicial nominations and promised to avoid a filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances. Are we headed into such a situation? Maybe. There is an “advice and consent” clause in the Constitution, and some lawmakers are seeking to give the president some substantive advice.
Understand that I believe George W. Bush to be among the worst presidents. Having said that, he certainly has a point about a dignified and fair confirmation process. Everybody should want that, except the professional paid attack dogs on the payroll of various interest groups. The game is to scan a candidate’s writing and decisions and try to discover some blemish, and everybody has one. The bare knuckles attack strategy does not serve the country well.
O’Connor is now labeled “moderate,” so the argument is that a similar “moderate” must also be named. There is a flaw in the seemingly benign theory. Supposed Rehnquist or Scalia should decide to head for the rocking chair. Then, according to this fractured logic, it would be completely acceptable to propose some loony right-wing ideologue.
Without becoming simplistic, it might be good to consider how hard it is to cast anybody as a philosophical purist. Sandra Day O’Connor was generally protective of abortion rights, but she also argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. Clarence Thomas may not possess the finest judicial mind, but he has an outstanding record on free speech issues. Under the present circumstances, it would be much better to find men and women who are vigorous thinkers. After all, it is an academic job.
It looks like Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, one of the “gang of 14” will have a significant role if there is to be a confirmation fight. The “gang” agreed to numerous Bush judicial nominations and promised to avoid a filibuster except in extraordinary circumstances. Are we headed into such a situation? Maybe. There is an “advice and consent” clause in the Constitution, and some lawmakers are seeking to give the president some substantive advice.
Understand that I believe George W. Bush to be among the worst presidents. Having said that, he certainly has a point about a dignified and fair confirmation process. Everybody should want that, except the professional paid attack dogs on the payroll of various interest groups. The game is to scan a candidate’s writing and decisions and try to discover some blemish, and everybody has one. The bare knuckles attack strategy does not serve the country well.
O’Connor is now labeled “moderate,” so the argument is that a similar “moderate” must also be named. There is a flaw in the seemingly benign theory. Supposed Rehnquist or Scalia should decide to head for the rocking chair. Then, according to this fractured logic, it would be completely acceptable to propose some loony right-wing ideologue.
Without becoming simplistic, it might be good to consider how hard it is to cast anybody as a philosophical purist. Sandra Day O’Connor was generally protective of abortion rights, but she also argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. Clarence Thomas may not possess the finest judicial mind, but he has an outstanding record on free speech issues. Under the present circumstances, it would be much better to find men and women who are vigorous thinkers. After all, it is an academic job.
