Balkinization: Confirm Them Has Turned Into Don't Confirm Her

Confirm Them Has Turned Into Don't Confirm Her

Or so it would seem. Whatever happened to the President's mighty Article II power to have his chosen candidates confirmed by the Senate?

The reason for the apparent flip-flop on this suddenly inappropriately named blog is that all those arguments about the unconstitutionality of the filibuster, the advantages of the nuclear option and, above all, the Senate's duty to confirm whoever the President chooses were premised on the President selecting candidates they approved of.

The fine folks over at Confirm Them have come to realize more urgently what they believed all along-- that qualifications are perhaps the most important feature in a judicial nominee.

Good for them. They care about what Sandy Levinson and I call the "high politics" of constitutional law. I may not agree with their views about the best interpretation of the Constitution, but I salute the fact that they are serious about the Constitution and about making sure that good people are put on the federal bench. The President, on the other hand, does not seem to share this seriousness about the Constitution. He just wants people on the bench who won't get in his way and will reach results he likes, however they get to that particular conclusion. Harriet Miers may turn out to be just dandy as a Justice; she may in fact be far more than the portrait we have from the press: a syncophant and crony put on the Court to give the President whatever he wants. But the early indications are not at all promising.

Posted 11:18 AM by JB [link]

Comments:

offering them lemonade from their own lemons.
how gracious

# posted by

D. Ghirlandaio : 8:09 PM

"The reason for the apparent flip-flop on this suddenly inappropriately named blog is that all those arguments about the unconstitutionality of the filibuster, the advantages of the nuclear option and, above all, the Senate's duty to confirm whoever the President chooses were premised on the President selecting candidates they approved of."

I don't think that's accurate. I think the views of confirm them were premised on the President selecting qualified candidates, which is not quite the same thing as you said. There has never been a blank cheque support; Bush could not name his daughter to the Supreme Court, or his CPA to succeed Greenspan.

# posted by

Simon : 10:02 PM

Actually, I have posted on on that topic, making the distinction and offering that I prefer the judicial philosophy of Thomas.

Also, as Andrew said, none of us has ever declared that the filibuster is unconstitutional. I am about as fervently opposed to the filibuster as any (including legislative ones), and have never said that they were unconstitutional.

But, we are not a monolith, and not even all are opposed to Miers. I would say that our main objection is that she is not qualified for the Court - not that she would not be a judicial conservative (thoguh that poses a problem as well).

# posted by

Paul Zummo : 11:56 PM