It looks to be an IN-YOUR-FACE! nomination. Quite the divisive choice.
1 comment:
counterpoint
said...
Since when does the minority party have any say in who the nominations are for the bench? If the Democrats oppose Roberts' views, they should feel free to vote against him (and accept whatever benefits or consequences those decisions bring), but the President -- as the winner of the election -- is exercising his Constitutional right to appoint whomever he wants. Clinton nominated an ACLU lawyer for the Supreme Court in Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not exactly a moderate choice, and nobody batted an eyelash, as she was confirmed with 97 votes. The Republicans rightly recognized that as the party not in the White House, it was not their decision whom to nominate. It would be nice if Democrats would show the same courtesy.
1 comment:
Since when does the minority party have any say in who the nominations are for the bench? If the Democrats oppose Roberts' views, they should feel free to vote against him (and accept whatever benefits or consequences those decisions bring), but the President -- as the winner of the election -- is exercising his Constitutional right to appoint whomever he wants. Clinton nominated an ACLU lawyer for the Supreme Court in Ruth Bader Ginsburg, not exactly a moderate choice, and nobody batted an eyelash, as she was confirmed with 97 votes. The Republicans rightly recognized that as the party not in the White House, it was not their decision whom to nominate. It would be nice if Democrats would show the same courtesy.
Post a Comment