When Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter was being considered for the Chairmanship of the influencial Senate Judiciary Committee, he stated that he would not employ any "litmus test" for any propestive judicial nominations. So please explain how, and more important WHY Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy can so batantly declare that if Judge John Roberts "does not pledge his full support for Roe v. Wade," he will not vote to confirm his appointment to the United States Supreme Court? At this critical time in our nation's history, this is just the kind of liberal democratic rhetoric that America does not need.
Does this also mean that if Judge Roberts does not get in "lock-step" with Senator Leahy's wreckless and irresponsible thinking, that not only will he not vote for his confirmation, but he could possibly hold the whole confirmation process hostage by means of another filibuster? Well, so much for the so-called compromise.
The application of any "litmus test," whether for an appointment to the United States Supreme Court, or any judicial position for that matter sets a very dangerous precedent and threatens to reduce the advice and consent process of the Senate to that of an ideological debate. Allowing such behavior does an extreme disservice to the people of this great Country.
We are at a critical time in the history of the United States, and the individuals who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court will be making decisions that will shape the history of the next 50 to 60 years and beyond. It is imperative, therefore that the nomination of Judge Roberts be given a fair and impartial hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and subsequently receive an up or down vote on the Floor of the Full Senate, on his merits and qualifications to be an Associate Justice of the Highest Court in America. To allow an ideological "litmus test" to determine if a particular nominee is suited for a given office or position, threatens to hijack the Senate's role of advice and consent. THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER!!
Does this also mean that if Judge Roberts does not get in "lock-step" with Senator Leahy's wreckless and irresponsible thinking, that not only will he not vote for his confirmation, but he could possibly hold the whole confirmation process hostage by means of another filibuster? Well, so much for the so-called compromise.
The application of any "litmus test," whether for an appointment to the United States Supreme Court, or any judicial position for that matter sets a very dangerous precedent and threatens to reduce the advice and consent process of the Senate to that of an ideological debate. Allowing such behavior does an extreme disservice to the people of this great Country.
We are at a critical time in the history of the United States, and the individuals who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court will be making decisions that will shape the history of the next 50 to 60 years and beyond. It is imperative, therefore that the nomination of Judge Roberts be given a fair and impartial hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and subsequently receive an up or down vote on the Floor of the Full Senate, on his merits and qualifications to be an Associate Justice of the Highest Court in America. To allow an ideological "litmus test" to determine if a particular nominee is suited for a given office or position, threatens to hijack the Senate's role of advice and consent. THIS WOULD BE A DISASTER!!
No comments:
Post a Comment