Dueling comments
It'll be interesting to see how these comments play out in the confirmation hearings. Guess the political affiliation of the commenters before following the link.
Quote 1:
[T]he Senate should resist, if not refuse to confirm Supreme Court nominees who refuse to answer questions on fundamental issues. In voting on whether or not to confirm a nominee, senators should not have to gamble or guess about a candidate’s philosophy, but should be able to judge on the basis of the candidate’s expressed views.
Quote 2:
[T]he public is best served by questions that initiate a dialog with the nominee, not about how she will decide any specific case that may come before her, but about the spirit and the method she will bring to the task of judging. There is a real difference … between questions that focus on specific results or outcomes, the answers to which would risk compromising a nominee’s independence and impartiality, and questions on judicial methods and philosophy. The former can undermine the dispassionate and unprejudiced judgment we expect the nominee to exercise as a Justice. But the latter are essential and contribute critically to our public dialog.
Thanks to Laura for the pointer.
2 comments:
I see the first quote; where's the second?
I sort of agree with the second but vehemently disagree with the first. A judicial candidates "philosophy" should not be relevent; how they apply the Constitution and laws to a particular case are. For example, it's not hard to imagine a judge with a far-left philosophy ruling against a pro-abortion situation without merit and the reverse as well ... as long as the judging is done using the right yardsticks. Any judge, right or left wing, who uses their personal philosophies to render a judgement is bad.
The second quote is in the middle of comment #5.
Post a Comment