Not surprising, he's not an American who shares American values.
Conservative Supremes.................
- Thread starter Nat Algren
- Start date
Not surprising, he's not an American who shares American values.
Fortas? He was confirmed to the SC and served for a few years and resigned under a cloud of ethics violations. He wasn't Borked, and he certainly wasn't booted for his judicial philosophy. If the conservatives would have set there sites on anyone it would have been Warren.
Bork should have been confirmed 100-0. Probably the most qualified person, top legal mind to ever be considered for the SC. He wasn't disqualified for the Sat night massacre. If Bork would have written papers supporting Roe, Kennedy and the rest of the liberal loons would have eventually confirmed him.
Estrada was nominated to the DC circuit court but the Dems wouldn't allow a vote because they feared (rightly so) that if he was confirmed he would have been the frontrunner for the next SC appointment that became available. The Dems were playing their usual racial politics, and no way in hell was the GOP going to be allowed to nominate the first Latino on the court. Once again showing the Dems don't give a d*mn about Latinos, they just care about their votes.
"Numerous judicial nominees prior to Estrada had been kept off the courts, when the Senate refused to let the nomination out of committee for a floor vote. A filibuster had been used in 1968 to extend debate regarding the elevation of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to Chief Justice of the United States, but the Estrada filibuster was different in multiple ways. Estrada's was the first filibuster ever to be successfully used against a judicial nominee who had clear support of the majority in the Senate.[12] Estrada's was the first filibuster of any court of appeals nominee.[12] It was also the first filibuster that prevented a judicial nominee from joining a court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miguel_Estrada
Well Obama certainly isn't the "correct" President, so what is your point? Dubya was bad and somehow Obama has found a way to be even worse. Good gravy, I hope we don't get Hillary so we end up with the trifecta of really, really, bad Presidents.
Abe Fortas was Borked on his nomination to chief judge.
You and I will just have to disagree on Judge Bork. Imo, he would not be in the top 10 minds to serve on the Supreme Court if he had been confirmed. I can think of several in recent history -- Brennan, Scalia, and Rehnquist to name as least 3. Not to mention any of the old timers - Holmes, Brandeis ....
If you think the Judge Estrada needed to be on the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit to be nominated to the Supreme Court, we will have to disagree on that too.
And the wiki that you cited to about Judge Estrada being the first appellate court nominee that was filibustered is just wrong. Three Clinton nominees for appellate court were all filibustered before Judge Estrada. I also know they enjoyed clear support because they were all confirmed after cloture votes needed to be taken to end the filibusters.
I agree Judge Estrada was the first judge that was successfully filibustered for a seat on the court of appeals.
Fortas had a relationship with Johnson. Johnson frequently consulted Fortas about political matters while he was on the SC. He should have never been confirmed as Chief Justice. The SC, especially the CJ, can't be advising the President on political issues. There has to be independence between the 2 branches. It's a direct conflict of interest of matters that could/did come before the court.
Fortas was booted (resigned before he got impeached) from the court for ethics charges. This guy had no business being CJ. The Republicans were absolutely correct to get to the bottom of his relationship with LBJ.
I never said Estrada HAD to be on the Court of Appeals to be nominated. You could get nominated to the Supreme Court. Warren was a governor before he became CJ. However, in recent times the SC justices have mostly served in that capacity. Also, Estrada was only 42 years old, so he wouldn't have the resume others would have, but serving on the DC Circuit court would have made it a much easier sales pitch for any Dems saying he lacked experience as a jurist.
As for the wiki article. I don't know. The citation comes from an NBC news article, hardly a bastion of rightwing propaganda.
During confirmation hearings the Supreme Court nominees routinely refuse to give opinions on legal questions posed by the senators. They invariably state that it would be inappropriate to opine on a legal issue that might come before the Court. Obviously, this is a bit of a dodge, but the fact remains that justices shouldn't go out of their way to publically involve themselves in controversial matters that might land before the Court.
If I remember correctly, Chief Justice Roberts took a great deal of heat because his wife was involved in some sort of right-to-life activities.
But, I agree with your statement that recusal is not mandatory and that opinions happen. It's just best not to seek controversy.
The Fortas situation isn't remotely comparable. Three major differences.
1. It wasn't for confirmation to SCOTUS; it was for elevation to Chief Justice.
2. The issue had nothing to do with judicial philosophy; it was about a lack of ethics. Fortas was a crony of LBJ, had accepted large speaking fees from companies that might have cases before SCOTUS, and was found to have been taking $20,000 a year as a consultant to a New York firm convicted of securities fraud.
3. The opposition was bipartisan. In terms of what we're discussing here, this is probably the most significant difference between the Fortas and Bork cases. A couple of dozen Democrats opposed Fortas, as well as most Republicans.
The first part of your statement above has little to do with the second. Even if you believe that "gay marriage", where completely legal, is somehow different than other marriages, performing a marriage ceremony is not "going out of their way to publicly involve themselves in a controversial matter...."
This whole appearance of impropriety thing has become bullshit, because in our extreme-partisan world now, everything must be improper.
Refusing to opine on a legal issue doesn't mean they don't have that opinion, it means they are intelligent enough not to chum the waters.
1. I understand it was for Chief. But a filibuster is a filibuster. If you don't think the position of Chief Judge is important, we will just have to disagree.
2. These payments were 100% legal. The Fortas filibuster was because of his liberal opinions as an associate justice. You can read and confirm that fact on the Senate's own website.
3. I agree that some democrats crossed over, but it was still a filibuster. The important point being he would have been elevated to Chief absent the filibuster by the republicans. President Johnson believed he had enough votes to confirm. Republican Senator Howard Baker said he was in the minority. The vote to invoke cloture was 45-43. An AP survey in the story on the filibuster has the head count at 47-27 in favor of confirmation, with 22 uncommitted, and 4 who couldn't be reached.
1. There was no filibuster. One was threatened, but it never occurred. Senate rules at the time required 67 votes to invoke cloture.
2. The payments were legal, but unseemly. Nobody suggested he was taking illegal payments. Fortas returned them eventually.
3. Fortas was criticized for his positions, but his relationship to LBJ -- they talked frequently
about issues coming before the court -- and his speaking fees were the major points. There also was some animosity toward him because of the way he found his way to the court in the first place (wheeling and dealing by LBJ).
4. What difference does it make how many Democrats crossed over? Two dozen or so is quite a few, anyway. But the point -- as I stressed in my post -- is that this may be the most significant difference in terms of the discussion here, because the opposition to Fortas clearly was bipartisan, while the opposition to Bork was purely partisan.
1. Look, I appreciate how you like to re-write history. Your sanitary version of Judge Bork and the Saturday Night Massacre is part-fiction of the highest order, right up there with the Penthouse Forum. ;-)
There was a filibuster.
The current (Republican held) Senate website says: "Filibuster Derails Supreme Court Appointment."
The Senate historian says it was a filibuster.
Newspaper articles written at the time called it a filibuster. The "Fortas Debate Opens with a Filibuster," Washington Post, Sept. 26, 1968.
A New York Times story from the same date: Senate "began a historic filibuster today."
The 1968 Congressional Quarterly Almanac: "The effort to block the confirmation by means of a filibuster was without precedent in the history of the Senate."
Fortas biographer said it was a filibuster.
LBJ's biographer said it was a filibuster.
The American Enterprise Institute says it was a filibuster.
The American Spectator says it was a filibuster.
The Washington Times says it was a filibuster.
4. Because there was a filibuster. And the republican participation in the filibuster prevented Fortas from ascending to Chief Judge.
One thing you fail to appreciate is that the democrats (rightly or wrongly) told Reagan and his advisers NOT to nominate Bork. Reagan and his advisers played chicken with the democrats and lost. Bork was rejected by some republicans as well in case you've forgotten. While Bork from a purely legal qualification standpoint was eminently qualified, for roughly 200 years politics have not been entirely absent from Supreme Court nominations.
