Justice for the Next Justice

John Cornyn (Republican senator from Texas) wrote in WaPo This week marks a historic occasion, not only for the U.S. Supreme Court, but for America -- the retirement announcement of our nation's first female Supreme Court justice. The process in the U.S. Senate for considering her successor should reflect the best of the American judiciary -- not the worst of American politics.... As soon as the president announces his nominee, media reports and interest groups will probably attempt to demonize or paint the nominee as a right-wing extremist. Some Senate Democrats -- who often insist on asking nominees to prejudge cases and issues -- will subject the nominee to controversial questioning during the hearing process. The American people should recognize such questions for what they are: an attempt to politicize the process and badger the nominee to reveal personal feelings about any given issue. This is unfair to the nominee and the American people, and grossly distorts the Senate's role of providing advice and consent. Before her service on the federal bench, Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- a distinguished jurist and liberal favorite -- served as general counsel of the American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal organization that has championed the abolition of traditional marriage laws. Before becoming a judge, Ginsburg expressed her belief that traditional marriage laws are unconstitutional but that prostitution is a constitutional right. She also wrote that the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are discriminatory institutions, and that courts must require the use of taxpayer funds to pay for abortions -- hardly views Americans would consider mainstream. Yet Senate Republicans and Democrats alike set aside such concerns and approved her nomination. By contrast, we have seen during the past four years a partisan minority obstruct this president's judicial nominees -- who hold views shared by millions of Americans and enjoy bipartisan majority support in the Senate -- suffer vicious attacks and unprecedented obstruction at the behest of liberal interest groups. Our role as senators is to ensure that the nominee is qualified and has the intelligence, character, and judicial temperament to perform the job, to guarantee that all senators have an opportunity to evaluate the nominee, to allow as much debate as is necessary to fully discuss the nomination, and then to come to a vote. Yet there are some who argue that the Senate can refuse to vote altogether, and that the Supreme Court should be forced to operate without a ninth justice. While I am confident that the nominee to replace Justice O'Connor will be an able jurist, I am less confident in the treatment he or she will receive from the president's opponents.

Extreme Left Wing Hunter @DailyKos blogged This post from Ed Kilgore over at TPMCafe is getting a lot of online attention, because he pretty much pegs exactly the problem here -- for Democrats, for Republicans, and for Bush:

This appointment represents the giant balloon payment at the end of the mortgage the GOP signed with the Cultural Right at least 25 years ago. Social conservatives have agreed over and over again to missed payments, refinancings, and in their view, generous terms, but the balance is finally due, and if Bush doesn't pay up, they'll foreclose their entire alliance with the Republican Party.

A few voices have bravely piped up, here and there, with the notion that Bush has an opportunity here to boost his legacy immeasurably with a moderate, centrist pick. It's admittedly true; he would probably get a major poll bounce, and start growing some non-existant coattails, if he chose a moderate conservative instead of a Gary Bauer, James Dobson approved one. But that's a pipe dream. Dobson owns Bush; we might as well start calling O'Connor's chair the Terri Schiavo Memorial Seat right now.

Oh, and John Cornyn of all people has a WaPo op-ed calling for "no litmus tests". Yes, that's right -- Senator Cornyn (R-Galapagos) is calling for restraint in discussing federal judges. Restraint by Democrats, of course...

Are you familiar with the Sermon on the Mount: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Are have the Secular Humanists shielded you from the Golden Rule? Do you recall how the Republicans treated the Democrats regarding Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer

Betsy Newmark blogged Senator Cornyn argues for the Ginsburg model in the confirmation hearings. Don't ask or expect the nominee to commit him or herself ahead of time on issues that will come before the Court. And since everything comes before the Court at some point, the Senators must limit themselves to broad questions of philosophy or to questions about past rulings. Of course, the Democrats won't do this, but if Specter has any spine at all, he should make it clear over and over in the hearings what questions are not appropriate. I don't expect him to do so, but the other Republicans can pick up the slack in drumming this point home. Cornyn is showing his chops already. He's going to be the point man on this nomination.