Friday, September 23, 2005
WaPo: "Words That Will Haunt"
The Downies - along with their lead schmuck, Harry Reid - have said that they will not vote for certain judges, whether or not they are qualified for the US Supreme Court.
Reid should be shamed for this stand, but except for one note, he has not.
We couldn't say this any better, so we will let this single editorial from The Washington Post speak, in full:
Words That Will Haunt
Unfortunately, the paper should realize that, yes, Downies do want this kind of system. Because secretly they realize that the cannot win the White House, and thus their chances of naming those judges is gone. So they need to stop the judges that Republicans will name.
This may be a key moment in history: a major American party saying, in effect, that they will never name judges to a federal or any other post in this country. All we can say to that is: Wow.
The Downies - along with their lead schmuck, Harry Reid - have said that they will not vote for certain judges, whether or not they are qualified for the US Supreme Court.
Reid should be shamed for this stand, but except for one note, he has not.
We couldn't say this any better, so we will let this single editorial from The Washington Post speak, in full:
Words That Will Haunt
IN ANNOUNCING his opposition yesterday to the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts Jr. to be chief justice of the United States, Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) made a remarkable statement: "The president is not entitled to very much deference in staffing the third branch of government, the judiciary." Leave aside the merits of the Roberts nomination, which we support; if Mr. Reid regards Judge Roberts as unworthy, he is duty-bound to vote against him. But these are dangerous words that Democrats will come to regret.
This country has only one president at a time. That president, right now President Bush, is tasked with naming judges. The Senate has the role of providing advice and consent on the president's choices, which is a significant constitutional task. But if the presidential election means anything in this arena, it must mean that the president's choice has a heavy presumption of confirmation. That is the way the system works. Why else would Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have received only a handful of no-votes among them? During the Clinton administration, we deplored the way that the Senate treated the president's judicial nominees during six years of Republican control over the Senate. Yet during those six years, the Senate confirmed 245 of President Bill Clinton's judges. If Republicans had been applying Mr. Reid's standard, they would have been within their rights to reject them all.
Do Democrats really want the American confirmation system to move in that direction? Republicans may still be in the majority the next time a Democratic president nominates a justice. Is it now okay for them to vote against a person who -- as Mr. Reid put it of Judge Roberts -- is "an excellent lawyer" and "a thoughtful, mainstream judge" who may make "a fine Supreme Court justice" simply because the nominee doesn't represent their ideal? When that day comes, and Democrats cry foul, remember what Mr. Reid said about how little deference he believes he owes Mr. Bush concerning Judge Roberts.
Unfortunately, the paper should realize that, yes, Downies do want this kind of system. Because secretly they realize that the cannot win the White House, and thus their chances of naming those judges is gone. So they need to stop the judges that Republicans will name.
This may be a key moment in history: a major American party saying, in effect, that they will never name judges to a federal or any other post in this country. All we can say to that is: Wow.
