"The proposition was that the Democrats
discovered that they could use a mechanism to block
judicial appointments where they disagreed
philospohically. This had not been done before--it
was infact unprecedented. They have since extended it
to people much less extreme than Bork. The
Republicans have retaliated. The point is that this
dynamic is a loser for the people."
Not unprecedented at all; it's been happening from the beginning. A quote from a recent article:
"President Washington's appointment of John Rutledge as Chief Justice in
1795 was rejected when Rutledge gave an intemperate speech in opposition to
the Jay Treaty. Garfield's appointment of Stanley Matthews in 1881, and
Wilson's appointment of Louis Brandeis in 1916, faced violent opposition
because the nominees were regarded as too "political," although both were
ultimately confirmed. Andrew Jackson twice nominated Roger B. Taney; the
first time he was defeated, but later he was confirmed as Chief Justice."
See http://www.spsbe.jhu.edu/evrgreen/egjournal/nominees.cfm for the full article.
I reiterate: this notion that something unique or unprecedented happened to Bork is a myth. The notion that the Democrats "discovered" a mechanism is a myth. This myth is being used by certain Republicans to justify their ideological opposition to certain nominees.
Incidentally, I note that after I quoted the actual writings of Bork, no one seemed anxious to defend them. I again state that the opposition to Bork was principled, based on non-ideological grounds, and that it is quite fortunate he was rejected.
Andy Weill
Powered by hypermail