It's not Tit for Tat until they feel the need to get their own back.
These sorts of agreements (where both sides normally allow the others
nominations to stand unchallenged) work on the basis that, by and
large the Nominees are not (too) controversial. If one side tries to
take advantage of this convention by putting forward some form of
extremist then they can hardly be surprised if the other side execute
their democratic/constitutional right to object
>
> > Incidentally, I note that after I quoted the
> > actual writings of Bork, no one seemed anxious
> > to defend them.
>
> What his beliefs were or were not was beside the point
> entirely.
Not entirely. It seems there was good reason for not allowing him to hold any sort of position of power or influence, therefore there was a good reason for using the legal and legitimate measures open to his opponenents to prevent this. If he had been blocked for frivolous reasons, or purely on the basis of his political affiliation, or who had nominated him then there would be cause for concern...
> We were discussing the dynamics of using
> constitutional mechanisms that are available, but
> inadvisable, especially if they are used frequently.
No argument that they are inadvisable if used frequently, since it suggests that the objectors are being deliberately obstructive. But otherwise what are the options if the person nominated genuinely seems to not be a fit person to hold the office?
> The tit-for-tat that our political parties engage in
> concerning the judiciary is a perfect case in point.
> And it started with Bork.
Technically it must have started with the response to Bork, since he could not be a "tit for tat" case if he was the first case since the war (unless some people have very long memories)
>
> > and that it is quite fortunate he was rejected.
>
> Again, not the point.
Well, if you think that his rejection was fortunate, then obviously the use of any (legitimate) means of ensuring his rejection can hardly be seen as a bad thing. What are people supposed to do?
"I think X is a terribly bad thing" "Dd you do anything to prevent it happening?" "No, that might have set a precedent"
> I personally thing that his
> views, as one of nine, would have been useful on the
> court, in order to bring a srutiny that was missing
> for some time there. Scalia fills this role pretty
> well for me. I would worry if his views were five of
> nine.
>
>From which I infer that Scalia has been appointed subsequently (since
he now represents views that were missing before) and that his
nomination was not blocked (So his views are presumably not so
unpallatable to the opposition).
Powered by hypermail