June 12, 2024

  • el
  • pt
  • More Judicial Nomination Politics

    By this standard, can anyone sit on the bench? Doesn’t everyone have views that would shape the way they would act as a judge? And isn’t the real issue that Democrats would prefer that views that resonate with them would be represented, rather than those that Republicans prefer?

    Many of President Bush's nominees have records of taking vigorous conservative views. When challenged at confirmation hearings by Democrats, they and their defenders invariably say that they will "follow the law" and Supreme Court precedent and that their individual views are irrelevant.

    Democrats have increasingly complained that such a response is a dodge and that the nominees would never have been picked in the first place by the Bush White House without holding such views.

    Mr. Pryor, following the pattern, argued vigorously that his personal beliefs and choices were unrelated to how he would behave as a federal judge.

    […]

    Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Mr. Pryor's assurances were largely meaningless: "It's just not enough to say `I will follow the law.' Every nominee says that, and then when they get to the bench they have many different ways of following the law."

    Really, isn’t the bottom line that Schumer objects to the way that he thinks that Pryor (and Estrada and Owen, etc.) would interpret the law? Isn’t he basically saying that Pryor is wrong and he is right, and that his view should dominate? It does come down to raw politics. And what is going to be the response the next time that a Democrat is in the White House and the Democrats control the Senate and the Republicans pull this nonsense?

    However, we do have a system in this country for placing judges on the bench: the citizens elect the President, who appoints, and the citizens elect the Senate, which confirms. As I have noted, the Democrats have every right to use every rule at their disposal to achieve their goals, even though they are in the minority. However, I am increasingly of the opinion that the Republicans will have to do the same vis-à-vis the rules, since the Democrats are clearly willing to abuse the filibuster rule to block the President’s nominees.

    And this is telling:

    Some Democrats said that Mr. Pryor's views are so unpalatable that they might not seek to block his confirmation with a filibuster, as they have with other nominees, but allow it to have a straight up or down vote in the Senate.

    So, if they think that they will win the vote, a vote is fine. But, if they would lose the vote, then let’s trot out the filibuster.

    Really, the issue seems to me to be this: if these nominees are indeed as repugnant as Schumer considers them to be, then why not attempt to convince 51 Senators that he is right? And indeed, someone (they are unnamed in the article) seems to arguing that that might possible in Pryor’s case. To which I say: that’s fair. The same should be done with Estrada and Owen: if they are truly unfit to serve, then convince 51 Senators that that is the case and win on the floor.

    And the following passage demonstrates the “you can’t win” element of this process that dates back to Bork:

    The senators appeared to enjoy reading Pryor quotations from his writings and speeches, and asking him if they were accurate. Pryor confirmed with a soft drawl that the views were his, but he said those views did not prevent him from enforcing the law.

    Because if you have written or spoken, you are doomed, but if you don’t have a paper trail you are skewered for not being forthcoming, a la Miguel Estrada.

    (Side note: I love the "drawl" ref. If he was from Boston would the paper comment on the way he pronounced his vowels, or how he added an "r" to words like Cuba and Ghana? I think not.)

    Sources for all but the last quote: NYT

    Source for the last quote: WaPo

    Posted by Steven Taylor at June 12, 2024 12:56 PM | TrackBack
    Comments

    Good post.

    While I am not sure Pryor is qualified for the 11th Circuit--you and I have both met him--he's clearly not dangerous.

    Posted by: James Joyner at June 12, 2024 02:07 PM

    Thanks--and my feelings exactly.

    Posted by: Steven at June 12, 2024 02:13 PM

    Steven: I agree with everything in the post, which, incidentally, succeeds in demolishing the claim that "following the law" is a sufficient answer for a nominee. If there are different views on the law that have equal legal validity (as determined by what arguments are out there in the legal culture), then the answer that a nominee will "follow the law" has no meaning, and political considerations can and should be front and center in the process.

    When political considerations combine with a razor thin majority plus lifetime appointments, you should expect a serious battle. As a matter of designing Senate rules, it makes sense that lower conformity costs are imposed in such a situation (unless, of course, you're the majority and you want simply to win in this instance, the future be damned).

    Posted by: Brett at June 12, 2024 02:46 PM

    1) I'm not sure whether anyone can predict what a given judge will do once he/she gets to the bench. There have been Supreme Court justices who acted much differently than anyone (including those who appointed them) might have thought they would.

    2) It's my understanding that the rate of approval for Bush's nominees has been below low--that is, that this is a systemic campaign to withold nominations, rather than a feeling that one or two might be "extreme."

    3) Isn't it unconstitutional to create an extra procedural hurdle in the confirmation process? Isn't this an abuse of the system?

    Posted by: Little Miss Attila at June 14, 2024 04:14 AM

    Well, maybe Bill Pryor really is an Earl Warren in disguise. But if that's the case, you can paint me orange and call me a carrot. . . :)

    Posted by: Brett at June 15, 2024 03:57 PM
    Post a comment









    Remember personal info?