Depends on What Your Definition of ‘Advice and Consent’ Is
Posted June 4th, 2009 at 2:19pm in Rule of Law 
Print This Post
There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee and the Senate should only examine whether the justice is intellectually capable and an all-around good guy; that once you get beyond intellect and personal character, there should be no further question as to whether the judge should be confirmed. I disagree with this view
– Then-Senator Barack Obama in 2006
This was said by Harry Reid in 2009
I understand that during her career, she’s written hundreds and hundreds of opinions. I haven’t read a single one of them, and if I’m fortunate before we end this, I won’t have to read one of them
What’s changed?
Clearly, a lot has changed. Obama is now president, and Liberals have a stranglehold on the Senate and the House. However, shouldn’t the same standards apply to people Obama chooses? Or, was he not referring to himself when he said that he disagreed with the President having complete authority when appointing a nominee? Seems as though he was not referring to himself.
This is said because he has taken steps to ensure a very quick confirmation process. Obama has already stated an arbitrary deadline for the confirmation process setting himself up to decry Conservatives, who may filibuster, as an attempt to disrupt things.
Constitutionally, the confirmation process is set up to be a long one. It is very important, because the Senate is appointing someone to a life term with no oversight and where the only rule is “good behaviour.” It is important to consider the nominee carefully. In other words, apply the “Obama Standard.” Article I, Section III of the constitution calls for the advice and consent of the Senate to confirm nominations of the Supreme Court. Heritage wrote about what the Constitution says about what ‘advice and consent’ means.
By any standards, ‘advice and consent’ does not mean to simply glaze over an appointment judged simply on the merits of who appointed the nominee. The Founders did not think that, Senator Obama did not think that, and conservatives in Congress don’t think that. There are serious, fundamental differences in how Sotomayor interprets the Constitution and those need to be expounded upon.
Author: 
4 Responses to “Depends on What Your Definition of ‘Advice and Consent’ Is”
Jarad, Long Beach CA on June 4th, 2009 at 2:19pm said:
I absolutely agree. I say this as a left leaning Independent. No side is perfect, no nomination unquestionable. I believe that rushing a nomination of such importance is always a mistake. The debate in the media has been absurd, unfortunately. I say unfortunate because there is a true, hidden, important philosophical debate at hand, underneath the racism and sexism calls, and the nitpicking of speeches. This debate lies between constitutionalists.
The debate between the belief in a breathing constitution and a cemented one may be considered too lofty a story for our perceived dim public, but it’s one that we could all benefit from. I disagree with filibustering in most situations, but a thoughtful consideration by the senate in such a large choice is paramount. We would be cheating ourselves otherwise.
Roger S., MA. on June 4th, 2009 at 2:19pm said:
The debate between a “living” constitution and a “cemented” one is a straw-man, generally advanced by left-of center liberals when the constitution would not grant them the alleged “rights” they seek, such as a right to a job, the right to free healthcare, subsidized housing, etc. But that’s not the nature of a constitution, to be expanded, whenever, to encompass a liberal’s limitless wish for an unearned Garden of Eden. Were it otherwise, why have a constitution in the first place. No ! The Constitution is about the “rights of man”, every man’s, especially as concerns the limits placed upon his government’s right to govern his actions. Our US Constitution, especially, concerns above all the limits on Government to interfere in an individual’s life. As such, it is very much “cemented”, “cast-in-concrete” even, and fully meant to be. Again, what point having a constitution if it were to be as malleable as any other act of legislation? That’s also why the hurdle to its amendment was from the very beginning set significantly higher than for any other legislative act. That’s why a carefully wraught balance of powers was incorporated. And, that’s what made it so unique and revolutionary from its own time to this very day. Why somebody as diregardful of it, as ready to play with it the role of judicial activist, as mediocre in her past performance, as Sotomayor, doesn’t belong in an institution whose sole purpose is to uphold and defend it. Why all of our lives are at stake in an incalculable way if too many legal and philosophical lightweights end up on the Supreme Court.
Consolidation on June 4th, 2009 at 2:19pm said:
complex post. due one unimportant where I contest with it. I am emailing you in detail.
Viagra on June 4th, 2009 at 2:19pm said:
I think the idea is good but you need to modify it a little.