talking points
I just got my talking points from RNC chairmen Ken Mehlman about John Robert's nomination.
---qualified etc...
---judicial temperment blah blah....
---non-polarizing dfsdflkjl.....
Oh, and here is something strange, 2 years ago he was UNANIMOUSLY confirmed by the Senate. I wonder how many Democrats will suddenly discover the "troubling record" that they didn't notice two years ago? I am gonna guess around 40.
---qualified etc...
---judicial temperment blah blah....
---non-polarizing dfsdflkjl.....
Oh, and here is something strange, 2 years ago he was UNANIMOUSLY confirmed by the Senate. I wonder how many Democrats will suddenly discover the "troubling record" that they didn't notice two years ago? I am gonna guess around 40.
posted by djobe at 8:15 AM
3 Comments:
1.) his confirmation was through unanimous consent, which means that there is no record of a vote on it, just that noone felt a need to request a roll-call vote on it. In other words, there could have been people against it, but not enough to prevent it.
2.) it looks, right now, at least, like his opposition might come from the right. Ann Coulter is speaking out against him. I find that pretty suprising, but her points are somewhat valid.
CM
I see what you are saying, but it is splitting hairs. If the question before the court is: How many Senators opposed his nomination? The answer is zero. If they truly opposed him but didn't do so on the record, then how strongly did they oppose him? If it is their job to act on their own conscience, and they have a legitimate concern but they don't raise that concern, then what are they doing in the "greatest deliberative body" in the world.
I think there will be a significant difference between this nomination and his nomination to the appellate court. My reason for this is pretty simple. On the appeals court, his job was to determine if something fell under current case law, and rule according to precident.
His job on the supreme court would change, from being the one ruling in accordance to precident, to being the one reviewing precident. They are 2 entirely different things.
While the Senate might not have a problem with this guy being one of the guys who plays by the rules, they might have a big problem with him being one of the people who makes the rules.
CM
Post a Comment
<< Home