Changing the Dynamics of Making Judicial Appointments
Even in the midst of economic turmoil and two wars, last week saw the attention of the nation’s voters turn to judicial nominations when President Obama tapped David Hamilton for the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. While the White House touted the pick as proof of the president’s intentions to appoint moderate, compassionate, and well-qualified justices to the bench, critics of the administration were quick to point out some controversial rulings he made on abortion and an instance where the same court opined that Hamilton had been guilty of an abuse of discretion in one ruling.
The battles that lie before the nation on this issue may be inevitable, but the landscape for these arguments has changed over the last two years. There are well over a dozen positions in the appellate courts which have remained empty for an extended period of time. This came as a result of an intransigent Democratic membership, which used every procedural tool available to block appointments by President George W. Bush that they deemed too conservative.
Now the tables have turned and the voters have empowered not only a new president to make such appointments, but seated an expanded Congressional majority behind him to facilitate the success of the nominations. With a modicum of help from moderate, blue-dog Democrats, the Republicans could make an effort to stave off the most liberal selections, but this path also poses problems. Ed Morrissey recently reminded us of the lectures given by the GOP to its Democratic colleagues on this issue:
As we argued during the Bush administration, elections have consequences, and one of them is the appointment of federal judges. The Constitution requires the “advice and consent” of the Senate, and all judicial appointments should get up-or-down votes in the Senate. However, let’s not pretend that Obama has nominated a moderate.
For my part, I’ve long felt that the quality of judicial nominees we’ve received over past decades has decayed, not because the selections were too liberal or too conservative, but simply because the selection process itself is flawed. The law is a beast unto itself and it rarely serves one master for long. An honest evaluation of constitutionally sound decisions by the courts will eventually anger observers at either end of the political spectrum. By paring down the short list to include only candidates who have never issued a ruling in violation of any number of litmus tests, we intentionally block out the truly independent thinkers and are left with nothing but a collection of partisans who allow politics and ideological dogma to color their interpretations.
Beyond the barriers of party platforms, history has shown us that presidents have, on occasion, been less than serious in fulfilling their appointment duties. In times past, these lifetime positions of high stature have been conferred upon troublesome political opponents as a way of removing them from the playing field. White House occupants have also used the SCOTUS bench as an early retirement reward for distinguished service by politicians with little or no judicial experience. Still others — most recently including the curious case of Harriet Miers — have attempted to seat close, trusted friends and allies absent any serious indication of communication skills or superlative constitutional expertise.
“President Obama should appoint truly independent-minded judges – not reliable ideological jurists.”
The Left will NEVER let that happen. Please..nice pipe dream.
I don’t want an “independent-minded judge” if that means someone who finds “penumbras” and “emanations” where they don’t exist.
I want someone who has a judicial philosopy that doesn’t create new law out of thin air but returns the onus to the legislative branch where it rightfully belongs.
“President Obama should appoint truly independent-minded judges – not reliable ideological jurists”
Did you really write that? Are you kidding? Don’t you know anything about these people?
The only major problem the Messiah is going to have filling these seats is finding enough tax-cheats. In the case of appointing judges, I’m sure he’s going to run out of available ACLU attorneys.
I doubt if The Vapid One knows enough about our Constitution to nominate someone who knows anything about our Constitution.
In a perfect world, any nominee who thinks international law has a place in America would be disqualified. Activist judges have no purpose in our legal system other than to promote a socialist agenda, and are themselves un-American.
I remember having a conversation about this subject with Jazz Shaw on his radio show on February 29, 2008 on Blog Talk Radio. He had decided to support the Democratic candidate Barack Obama, and I called to ask him why. He answered that he thought federal spending was out of control, he was against the war in Iraq and wanted to change the judicial direction we were going in. Were we going in too much of a conservative direction? No, he said, he just wanted a change. That’s a good example of how much thought he puts into things some times. But he’ll tell you he ended up voting for the Libertarian. We’ll have to take the word of a moderate on that.
I mention that because I can understand wanting change, but it’s tough to respect Shaw’s clarion call for “independent” judges when he has little idea what he means by that. All nominations at federal level positions will naturally reflect the ideology of the president – it’s a recognition that not only do judges hold great power to change society (they’ve assumed this role), but the president’s supporters demand that their vision be reflected on the bench. Furthermore, there likely isn’t a more ideological person in any administration than the president – it’s the reason they run for the position of most powerful person in the world. You don’t work that hard to make it into the Oval Office so you can field moderates to the bench. Barack believes he’s strengthening the country he loves by nominating ACLU attorneys to the federal bench.
Don’t underestimate him (folks like BackwardsBoy). Barack Obama is well versed in the law and the Constitution – he’s a highly educated man who is deeply ideological, who earned his political stripes battling in the dog eat dog world of Chicago politics. He’s never shown the willingness to compromise with his political adversaries, and assumes an air of entitlement now that will either propel him or destroy him. Only the hopelessly idealistic would expect he would now recognize a responsibility to nominate “independent” judges. We call the “hopelessly idealistic” Obama followers.
Political moderates like Jazz serve a purpose, but too often folks like him think moderation means the absence of partisanship. They’ll argue that partisanship happens when people stuck in ideological boxes labeled “conservative” or “liberal” won’t give up thoughtless positions and give in to pragmatism. Moderates believe they’re above the fray by virtue of their political magnanimity. But that’s a ruse. Shaw’s broadsides against Sarah Palin or Joe the Plumber show he’s eager to spit political poison when personal assaults are good for marketing his name, but he wags the finger when political poisons are sprayed in debates on issues beyond personality – like war, taxes or judicial nominees.
We can’t wish away our disagreements, and there’s no virtue in passivity when America faces the challenges it does. Freedom is worth fighting for. Barack Obama is worth fighting against.
Puleeze! Il Duce won’t be appointing anyone that doesn’t toe his line. What he should do? C’Mon! What he SHOULD do is produce his Birth Certificate!!
OK, so NOW you want independent judges. Don’t hold your breath. It’s the judicial version of bi-partisanship – ignore it when yo have power, whine about it when you don’t. Very simple. Appreciate the thought, really, but you should move on to something that has at least a modicum of possibility. I suggest you support haley Barbour’s latest leadership coup – making it illegal to sell babies in Mississippi (and this time they mean it).
Obama is and always has been owned by a group of pimps whose objective was and is to destroy the middle class in America. To ensure that the middle class never recovers here, Obama will appoint left wing radicals who will make Ginsburg look like a moderate!
8. TexEd: . . . Wrong, Tex. The only problem the USA has is Texas. We should have left it in the hands of Mexico instead of stealing it from them. We’d be far better off. Instead, we’ve two hundred years of ignorance masquerading as a pioneer spirit. All you’ve ever contributed is dry wells, pervert preachers and botox bimbos. Do us all a favor and recede already. Please.
7. One of my own, actually, the idea Bush had, as much as I hate the guy even I have to admit that he was appointing strict constructionists. You know, the kind that do not bring a personal agenda? Who, pray tell, would you call an idealog amoung Bush’s appointees and what is your evidence?
I can name an idealog: Justice Ginsberg, former counselor for the American Civil Liberties Union. She’s tried to re-write the constitution with each opinion she’s written. None of the conservatives have. Not Thomas, not Scalia, not Alito and not Roberts!
You can screech all you want to, but you can’t change the facts.
Greetings all members,
I would just like to say hello and let you know that I’m happy to be a member – been a lurker long enough
Hope to contribute some and gain some knowledge along the way….