|
|
<< Turkey Abolishes the Death Penalty | Main | (More) GOP Lies on Jobs >> November 14, 2003In Praise of SchumerismThe Wall Street Journal is attributing the current Democratic filibusters as derived from a dangerous doctrine: Schumerism. And what is Schumerism? Mr. Schumer insists that senators must make a judge's "ideology" their principal concern. By this he means the judge's private political opinions, as well as the political results his decisions have led to in past cases and could lead to in the future. Judges whose views on affirmative action and abortion are outside the "mainstream" should be disqualified from sitting on the federal bench, regardless of competence.By that definition, I am a die-hard believer in Schumerism. But then "Schumerism" is how Presidents pick their judges-- not a lot of pro-choice, pro-labor liberals among Bush's nominees -- so why shouldn't the Senate judge by the same standards. As I've noted on this point in the past, too many past battles on all sides focused on specious "character" attacks as a smokescreen for the real ideological differences. Opposing judges because you disagree with them-- the most American reason for dissent in our democracy -- will actually raise civility, since it means you can oppose a judge without implying they are some degenerate. Miguel Estrada or Bill Pryor or any of the other rightwing judges coming down the pike may be dutiful children and loving parents, bright and intelligent, and so on. It is actually a great improvement to public debate that we can grant all that to Janice Brown, then declare our opposition to her appointment based on her views on the Lochner decision. There is no reason in a democracy why either superior virtue or intelligence entitles you to office. Judges have too much power in my view to not be judged based on their views before given lifetime appointment. As things stand, the appointment process is the one check on judicial power for the lifetime of a judge. It should be a tough check for that very reason. So three cheers for Schumerism! Posted by Nathan at November 14, 2003 01:08 PM Related posts:
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: CommentsA somewhat similar argument is in an op-ed in today's New York Sun. Filibusters and Philosophy by Randy Barnett. Posted by: Euro at November 14, 2003 01:32 PM Hear Hear! I saw Senator Schumer speak last week about this issue. One point he made is that this doctrine is anything but new: rejection of nominees based in ideology was the norm from the founding of the republic (Proving that the Founding Fathers envisioned this role for senators, as some of them were early senators.) until more or less the 1950s. Senator Schumer went on to say how he doesn't even oppose all conservatives just those who will tip the balance of an appeals court, and who believe their role is to "make law" not "interpret law." Posted by: Kevin Block-Schwenk at November 14, 2003 05:36 PM That's an important point, Kevin. I've heard countless right-wing commentators complain that Schumer and the Dems won't confirm anyone who doesn't share their views on things like abortion, affirmative action, gay rights, and so on. If that were true, I would also object; you can't expect Bush to send up the same set of candidates a Democrat would. But that's not what Schumer's been doing. They've blocked how many now? Six? Seven? I doubt Bush has named a single circuit-court nominee who wasn't pro-life, anti-affirmative action, pro-tort reform, "federalist," and so on. The Dems haven't tried to block them all, not even close. What they've been looking for is some consultation, so that their views are taken into consideration; the result would be that Bush doesn't get to have everybody as extreme as he would like, but that he appoints a generally conservative bunch of judges that is tempered somewhat to be acceptable to the Dems. Compare that to what the Republicans did to Clinton--holding scores of nominations indefinitely, seemingly irrespective of the individual nominees' characteristics, so that Clinton couldn't name anybody and the seats would be left open for a Republican--and it's hard to sympathize with conservatives' whining at the minimal compromises Bush is being asked (but refuses) to make. Posted by: J. J. at November 15, 2003 10:52 AM The other thing (well, one of the other things) about the Hatch/Santorum argument I find disingenuous is the idea that only "liberal" judges are capable of "activism." If they had an ounce of honesty between them they'd admit otherwise. Posted by: Linkmeister at November 15, 2003 02:14 PM Post a comment
|
Series-
Social Security
Past Series
Current Weblog
January 04, 2005 January 03, 2005 January 02, 2005 January 01, 2005 ... and Why That's a Good Thing - Judge Richard Posner is guest blogging at Leiter Reports and has a post on why morality has to influence politics... MORE... December 31, 2004 December 30, 2004 December 29, 2004 December 28, 2004 December 24, 2004 December 22, 2004 December 21, 2004 December 20, 2004 December 18, 2004 December 17, 2004 December 16, 2004
Referrers to site
|