Since it seems that others here can't read, and insist I said things I did not, since that would match THEIR view of what they don't like, let me repeat from


14 Jul 09 - 04:28 PM


"We believe elections have consequences, and presidents are entitled to some deference in their appointment of judges, if those presidents show enough respect for the bench to name men and women of quality. Mr. Bush was owed better than then-Sen. Obama gave him; despite that record, Mr. Obama is owed deference now. "

I have NOT objected to the present nomonee- as the above statement reflects what I think. A pity that the Democrats have not, in the past, acted accordingly. And a pity the the Republicans may not, in this case:

----------------------------------------------------------------

Any other comments are just about what someone else is thinking I must have said because in the opast I have expressed a certain political bent- I would call this at least bias, if not predjudice.


From the following http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/14/AR2009071402891.html



QUOTE: :"The question concerns the degree of deference that senators should show to a president's choice for the Supreme Court. More specifically, why should Republican senators weighing President Obama's nominee give him more leeway to name justices to his liking than then-Sen. Obama was willing to accord President Bush when he voted against both Bush nominees?

As the hearings got under way, Republican senator after Republican senator raised this question. Democrat after Democrat ignored it.

South Carolina Republican Lindsey O. Graham put it best: "You're probably going to decide cases differently than I would," he told Sotomayor. "So that brings me back to, what am I supposed to do, knowing that?"

The Constitution provides that the president appoint justices "by and with the advice and consent of the Senate." So there is constitutional space, and, indeed, a duty, for the Senate to consider not only technical qualifications but judicial philosophy and the overall balance of the high court. The fact that senators are weighing a lifetime appointment rather than a Cabinet post dials up the intensity with which the Senate should scrutinize and judge a nominee.


In short, advice and consent doesn't mean roll over and play dead.

At the same time, as Graham put it, "elections matter." If the test for confirmation were simply whether the senator would have chosen the same nominee if he or she were president, the answer would be a preordained, partisan vote. This would be merely a nuisance in the case of a Senate controlled by the same party as the president. It would be a recipe for gridlock in situations of divided government.

Add to this constitutional muddle the fact that the current president -- the first senator to reach that office in nearly half a century -- is in the unusual position of having voted against confirming two Supreme Court nominees.

The sweeping phrases of the Constitution provide scant guidance about the degree of deference that presidential nominees should be accorded, but senators considering President Obama's choice have Sen. Obama's example to guide them.

In 2005, Obama said he was "sorely tempted" to vote to confirm John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, saying that "there is absolutely no doubt in my mind" that Roberts was intellectually and temperamentally qualified for the job.

....
You don't have to be cynical to think politics was at play, too; in fact, you just have to read The Post, which reported that Obama's Senate chief of staff, Pete Rouse, warned him that a vote for Roberts could cripple his presidential ambitions.

....
But it's also true that Obama's reported remarks to Rouse -- that if he were president, he wouldn't want his nominees turned down on purely ideological grounds -- were prescient.

As Graham told Sotomayor, "I can assure you that if I applied Sen. Obama's standard to your nomination, I wouldn't vote for you, because the standard that he articulated would make it impossible for anybody with my view of the law and society to vote for someone with your activism and background when it comes to lawyering and judging."

....
Judging from the tone so far, the more likely outcome is a near party-line vote. In that case, the president won't have only himself to blame -- but he will have himself to blame in part. "

END QUOTE



I think that the comments made here are worth thinking about. Sorry if you don't agree, but that does not control what ** I ** think.